PDA

View Full Version : Sexual Equality


Eldritch
03-27-2003, 12:37 PM
Do you think that sexual equality has been achieved in the workplaces of the world? Why, or why not?

Personally, I think it's an overwhelming 'No,' at least here in the US, but i'm curious as to the situation in other countries.

griff38
03-27-2003, 02:03 PM
Well we have certainly come along way but yes I agree with you it has along way to go.

I don't believe there is a conspiracy to keep women down, but some men do close ranks and exclude female equals sometimes on purpose and sometimes with out being aware of what they are doing.

I would love to tell you why this happens but I am not in a mood to start a new fire fight with the provincials.

Clem
03-27-2003, 02:10 PM
another generation and we'll be alot closer

atm. tho .... no

but positive discrimination isnt the answer people

Breton
03-27-2003, 02:41 PM
Sexual equality has been achieved in most places, but not all. But the largest problem with these women right organisations is that they only want to turn it the other way around. Heck, in some cases, women actually have more rights than men, but no one cares about them. These women right organisations are not pro sexual equality, they are pro turning it the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, of course. I am really for sexual equality.

Eldritch
03-27-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Sexual equality has been achieved in most places, but not all. But the largest problem with these women right organisations is that they only want to turn it the other way around. Heck, in some cases, women actually have more rights than men, but no one cares about them. These women right organisations are not pro sexual equality, they are pro turning it the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, of course. I am really for sexual equality.
Good point. I'm for sexual equality as well, but like you said, many women are more intent on getting more than their share, rather than an equal share.
Granted, women were oppressed by men (generally speaking) in the past, but that's no reason to flip it around now. You can't seek to dominate under the banner of equality.

El Sitherino
03-27-2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Aru-Wen
Good point. I'm for sexual equality as well, but like you said, many women are more intent on getting more than their share, rather than an equal share.
Granted, women were oppressed by men (generally speaking) in the past, but that's no reason to flip it around now. You can't seek to dominate under the banner of equality. W3RD. (what jm and aru said goes for me too)

ET Warrior
03-29-2003, 01:56 AM
I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone here. I'm all for equality of the sexes.....even though i always put down girls just to get a rise out of them in class ;) I also hate women superiority groups though, they're so irritating....

Darklighter
03-29-2003, 10:19 AM
The thing is, I believe in equality of sexes, and I think the majority of people here would argue that this equality has not been achieved, and who believe in equality. Yet there are numerous women superiority groups, like you said ET, who are intent on proving that women are better than men, when in fact most men want just equality. I'm doing all about feminism in English at the moment, and how they believe that men are the weaker sex...it's all a load of bull crap to be honest. I don't think either sex is weaker, which is why should all have equal share in things. In terms of equality, we have progressed so much in the last 100 years or so. I bet someday though, these women superiority people will have their way lol

C'jais
03-29-2003, 10:26 AM
Without going into social Darwinism, men are indeed the stronger sex, if raw muscle mass is what it's based upon.

No, the two different sexes are not equal, nor will they ever be, but we can at least hope for equal wages on jobs where men and women can do the same job equally well.

El Sitherino
03-29-2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Without going into social Darwinismbut unfortunately thats what the world is running in. i think we can hope for equal wages but like just about everything else there will never be equality without idiocy. i'll try to have a report for ya'll tommorow. i did a report on equality but one of the things is for all the wrongs there is always a wanting for equal opposites meaning the people who were wronged need to be in control for a while then they will balance it out after their vengeance is satisfied. but then the other group will want to do the same thus it will never stop. but ill try to have a good report tommorow.

lassev
03-30-2003, 07:24 AM
but we can at least hope for equal wages on jobs where men and women can do the same job equally well

One funny thing here, which is mostly forgotten, is a one small fact about wages. Nowadays they are not (always) equal, but the thing is: companys and governments save always money when somebody does the same job, equally good, but still takes less money than the guy next to her. As long as this is a universal way of action, why would the wage payer change it? They save real money.

ShadowTemplar
04-02-2003, 05:29 AM
Curiously after we started negotiating individual pay in Denmark, income disperancy between men and women started climbing again...

CagedCrado
04-04-2003, 07:43 PM
Its like that with all minorities and women. They all want more and usually none of them want equality. (giving them money, affirmitive action, all this bs etc) I live in south dakota, its in the midwest, and recently the native americans (or indians as they actually prefer to be called believe it or not, and what they call themselves) recently boycotted mcdonalds and wal mart because an indian man was shot because he came after a cop carrying a knife... in this case it is bull ****. Wanting equality is different from wanting to be treated better and wanting money.... they should ask to be treated the same because right now they are treated better! (american indian are, black people usually are, same with latinos but less so), honestly the only group treated worse than the others is asian.

El Sitherino
04-04-2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
Its like that with all minorities and women. They all want more and usually none of them want equality. (giving them money, affirmitive action, all this bs etc) I live in south dakota, its in the midwest, and recently the native americans (or indians as they actually prefer to be called believe it or not, and what they call themselves) recently boycotted mcdonalds and wal mart because an indian man was shot because he came after a cop carrying a knife... in this case it is bull ****. Wanting equality is different from wanting to be treated better and wanting money.... they should ask to be treated the same because right now they are treated better! (american indian are, black people usually are, same with latinos but less so), honestly the only group treated worse than the others is asian. you call not being allowed to live outside a certain area being treated better. damn dude you just dont learn do you?!?! as a native american descendant I'm appauled at how idiotic you are by saying indians are being treated better. sure better than when they were being slaughtered for fun but still being allowed only to live inside one area is not good its called concentration camp.

CagedCrado
04-04-2003, 07:53 PM
I live here and i have seen these so called concentration camps. Free SUBURBANS free HOUSES and thats not just the ones that live on the reservation, thats the ones that live in the CITIES!!!! wow.... 12% of the population in the city i live in is native american and the state is 10%, sounds like they are contained in a small area huh? (btw i live in the second largest city)

It is in no way a concentration camp. Trust me. Im not at all racist, i have many friends that are native american, and to say that they are in a concentration camp is an uninformed response.

Oh ya and if i could prove i was a native american, id gladly live in this 'concentration camp' and have a free house and suburban, free college, medical, and the right to be a pain in the ass to everybody else.

I agree the reservation needs to be gotten rid of since it promotes this bs, but they are treated very very fairly.

Eldritch
04-04-2003, 10:36 PM
Alright guys, chill and be friends, ok?

It's a little off-topic, but I think that in most cases the US is trying to right the wrongs that it did with the Native Americans. But like living anywhere in the US, they have a choice. I think most stay in the reservations due to the reasons Crado mentioned - free hospital, medical care, school, etc... but that doesn't mean they can't leave whenever they want to.
And Sith, calling it a concentration camp is a bit of a stretch, and a slap in the face to anyone who lived through one. No one is killed and/or tortured on reservations in the same way the Jews were in Nazi Concentration camps.

Commander Bond
04-05-2003, 10:18 AM
I'm hailing from London, England. I run my own business: a small financial advising firm. I, for one, am all for female equallity in the workplace...

...I let my female employees work longer so they can earn as much as the men!

That was just a little joke, although I do run my own little financial advising company. I have three employees: two men and one woman. There has been no problem with the different sexes, and I pay each person according to their post. The woman even earns more than one of the men at the moment, although he is in line for a raise soon. But, enough of me rambling.

This is only a small company, though. There are only four people in the office, so I can't tell you about larger companies/workplaces. However, as I say, there is no problem at my company!

By the way... the woman is fired. Joking!

El Sitherino
04-06-2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Eldritch
Alright guys, chill and be friends, ok?

It's a little off-topic, but I think that in most cases the US is trying to right the wrongs that it did with the Native Americans. But like living anywhere in the US, they have a choice. I think most stay in the reservations due to the reasons Crado mentioned - free hospital, medical care, school, etc... but that doesn't mean they can't leave whenever they want to.
do you realize that the hospitals aren't free because of the government but because the indians now run them independently and the schools are not up to date because they have no way to get good supplies and they can't leave, noone wants them anywhere oh and crado you make arguments as they are living in the past well so is america for not shutting up about 9/11 thats in the past. and the native americans are still being treated badly. they have people coming in and stealing from them killing them and the police doing nothing and people wont let them leave because once again noone wants them. i do but im just me and apparently my words of truth can't change a biggots heart and opinion.

ioshee
04-07-2003, 05:02 PM
There is definitely not equality at the workplace. This girl I work with always gets treated very well by upper management because she wears low-cut blouses and short skirts. I tried that last Friday and they asked me to go home and change. That’s not very fair.

I agree with something C’jais said. Men and women are not equal and never will be (well never say never, we could evolve to be equal in another quadrillion years.)

I don’t think women will ever be cut out to do certain things like be President of the United States for one little reason: hormones. It’s a scientific fact that men are not affected as drastically by hormones as women are. Just look at that poor woman who drowned her kids in the bathtub because of postpartum depression (sarcasm intended.)

My point is that women claim to be special when it benefits them and they claim to be equal when it benefits them. That’s just idiotic.

Pisces
04-09-2003, 11:40 PM
*eye begins twitching*

Sorry, but I always wind up talking about this with my feminist girl friends and I always wind up getting slapped. Sort of an annoying topic for me, but I still feel strongly about it.

I think that if you even things out we have equality but men have it better in some aspects of the job and women have it better in other aspects.

I've heard of men, even though they were better qualified, applied first and maybe one or two other things, get turned down for a job and a women hired because the company, or place of work didn't have 'enough' female employees and were getting berated over it.

On the flip side, many people know that in some jobs women are held to the same physical standards as men, and because women are naturally weaker, slower etc. (in general) than men, they end up laid off, or demoted or such.

These are two general, broad points though, nothing about any specific jobs.

And like ioshee said women claim to be special when it benefits them and they claim to be equal when it benefits them. That’s just idiotic.

"Women fight to be equal in the workplace but don't fight to be included in the draft".

El Sitherino
04-10-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by NeoDios

"Women fight to be equal in the workplace but don't fight to be included in the draft". if you read the original womens lib speeches they demanded with extra emphasis that they be allowed the right to be drafted. and men do the same when it's a female boss (well those that don't have any issues with sexual morality) also many male (usually over the age of 36) treat all women of the work place as sexual objects infact many women are hired because of their looks and not their talent or skills. women are also hired over men because the guy can't get any action so he has to intimidate a women that he hires into sleeping with him i found a chart somewhere that backs up what i say. i could try and find one on the net but it says that over 80% of women who are hired have been pressured by a boss into having sex with them and were hired only for that. so it's not that it's necessarily their fault some old guys sex drive shot up when she walked into the office.also women don't get much in the work place unless they flirt. unfortunately i have witnessed this first hand.

Pisces
04-10-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
if you read the original womens lib speeches they demanded with extra emphasis that they be allowed the right to be drafted.

Really? Cool. All right, well then, so long as they're trying to be equal in everything, it's all good. :D

Thrackan Solo
04-10-2003, 08:06 PM
Should we hire women just because of sexual equality? what if she has less experience than a man? do you want your business to run less efficiently just because you want more equality in the work place?
Whats next? you want equal women and men POW's?

wedge2211
04-10-2003, 08:08 PM
Funny, I was about to bring that up myself. I REALLY wish that the states of America could pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which would essentially alter the Constitution/Amendments to state "men and women" or "citizens" in all cases where it currently says, "men." I'm all for it. If you ask a woman, they won't in their right mind say no to that, it sounds awesome. But, this thing was vetoed when it was proposed. The reason? An ultrafeminist campaigned HARD to get it vetoed, because it would subject women to the draft. I'm all for that, along with the rest of the ERA. In fact, women in the military now are playing an extremely important role, so far as I know, the only positions they are not allowed to occupy are infantry and submarine positions, though I may be wrong about that. But they certainly are capable...Jessica Lynch was captured shooting.

My ex-girlfriend goes to an all-women's college. THOSE I can't stand, along with men's schools. Why should anyone believe that the sexes need to be segregated in education? By doing that, you implicitly admit that the sexes are unequal, one way or the other, which I believe is totally unacceptable.

Interesting to be discussing this in an online gaming community, where screen names hide gender but most people here seem to be speaking as males...

Bonedemon
04-11-2003, 06:33 AM
You could consider pregnancy as draft. I mean most women get 2-3 children. That is 12-18 months of trouble with your body. The first three months aren´t bad, or so I´ve been told. After that the mother has to breast-feed and so on. In the US army there are women everywhere except in the combat parts.

Men and women are phychologically and physically different. Equal wages and the like are required IMO, but I guess that women and men will simply seek different jobs because they think differently.

El Sitherino
04-11-2003, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Should we hire women just because of sexual equality? what if she has less experience than a man? do you want your business to run less efficiently just because you want more equality in the work place?
no i dont think we should hire women just because of sexual equality but most women are hired over men because male bosses tend to use them as a sexual tool in the workplace.

El Sitherino
04-11-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by wedge2211

My ex-girlfriend goes to an all-women's college. THOSE I can't stand, along with men's schools. Why should anyone believe that the sexes need to be segregated in education? By doing that, you implicitly admit that the sexes are unequal, one way or the other, which I believe is totally unacceptable.
those schools have to do more with religion. they think that co-ed or just men-women colleges lead to pre-marital sex:rolleyes: silly christians (no offence but they tend to be catholic schools, baptist schools, or presbyterian schools)

ioshee
04-11-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Bonedemon
You could consider pregnancy as draft. I mean most women get 2-3 children. That is 12-18 months of trouble with your body. The first three months aren´t bad, or so I´ve been told. After that the mother has to breast-feed and so on. In the US army there are women everywhere except in the combat parts.

What are you talking about?!? Do you know what a draft is?


Originally posted by InsaneSith
... also many male (usually over the age of 36) treat all women of the work place as sexual objects infact many women are hired because of their looks and not their talent or skills....

Originally posted by InsaneSith
no i dont think we should hire women just because of sexual equality but most women are hired over men because male bosses tend to use them as a sexual tool in the workplace.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
those schools have to do more with religion. they think that co-ed or just men-women colleges lead to pre-marital sex:rolleyes: silly christians (no offence but they tend to be catholic schools, baptist schools, or presbyterian schools)

InsaneSith, you tend to over-generalize A LOT. Weren’t you one of the people criticizing CagedCrado for his generalizations of Native Americans? How are you any different?

ZBomber
04-11-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
those schools have to do more with religion. they think that co-ed or just men-women colleges lead to pre-marital sex:rolleyes: silly christians (no offence but they tend to be catholic schools, baptist schools, or presbyterian schools)

i dn't blame them. Condoms don't always work man.

Thrackan Solo
04-11-2003, 04:29 PM
no i dont think we should hire women just because of sexual equality but most women are hired over men because male bosses tend to use them as a sexual tool in the workplace.

I agree with you there but not all men hire women just to use them, my dad hires women, and hes happily married he doesnt fool around with them.

El Sitherino
04-11-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
I agree with you there but not all men hire women just to use them, my dad hires women, and hes happily married he doesnt fool around with them. that why i say some. not all there is a difference between what i siad and the word all. and im very glad that your father is a gentlemen that doesnt hire women just as tools. and to you ioshee i didnt generalize i stated statistics.

Thrackan Solo
04-11-2003, 08:40 PM
hey insane there is no some in your statement you said most women are hired over men for tools.

El Sitherino
04-11-2003, 09:36 PM
well many in the same sense as some.

ShadowTemplar
04-15-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by ZBomber
i dn't blame them. Condoms don't always work man.

No. Only in 96% That leaves just a meagre 4% to have their pregnancy terminated.

InsaneSith, you tend to over-generalize A LOT. Weren’t you one of the people criticizing CagedCrado for his generalizations of Native Americans? How are you any different?

He's got the statistics backing him.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-26-2003, 04:43 PM
I'm for equality too, but women have to give too.

For example the draft. Why exactly wouldn't women be drafted? Women


Have better balance,
Strategic thinking, and
Ability to endure hardships

than men, meaning they're just as likely candidates. Several navies that allow women to join features submarines and surface vessels commanded by women, on boats with majorities of men. Meaning that a woman can perfectly well outrank a bunch of men. Heck, some of the most dangerous Caribbean pirates were women! Oh, and have you ever played an RTS game against a girl;)?

Next, sexual abuse and the likes. You know a woman can get away with staring and sometimes even stalking a good deal easier than a guy.

Should we hire women just because of sexual equality? what if she has less experience than a man? do you want your business to run less efficiently just because you want more equality in the work place?
No. What I want is that people look away from gender when they hire people. Let's say I have two candidates with almost identical resumes. Pick the one with the best resume, not the one with the cutest body.

You could consider pregnancy as draft. I mean most women get 2-3 children. That is 12-18 months of trouble with your body. The first three months aren´t bad, or so I´ve been told. After that the mother has to breast-feed and so on. In the US army there are women everywhere except in the combat parts.
Er.. drafting means to join the armed forces for a period of time. The government does it to increase army strenght, not to torture you. You can't say "okay, I don't have to join the navy because I've already been in pain". Having a baby doesn't exactly bring a submarine anywhere:).

IMO, the fact that girls aren't drafted is one of the most sexist problems in society. Think: How long would womens' right movements tolerate it if girls had to do something that guys didn't have to do?

Funny, I was about to bring that up myself. I REALLY wish that the states of America could pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which would essentially alter the Constitution/Amendments to state "men and women" or "citizens" in all cases where it currently says, "men."
I agree, but "men and women" sounds to informal, and citizens could imply (I know you didn't mean it that way) that all non- US citizens living in the States are created differently (well, we are, but still:p). What about "humans"?

BTW, I believe "man" is an old way of saying "human", as in "mankind" instead of "humankind", so the constitution could meaning "humans", maybe? Anyone know?

My ex-girlfriend goes to an all-women's college. THOSE I can't stand
Along with segregated gym classes, like at my school.

munik
04-27-2003, 01:27 AM
Anyone who thinks that women should be included in the draft have never had to serve with women. It may sound like such a great idea while you sit in your plush sofa, but you may think differently when you are the one that has to pick up their slack and carry their dead weight.

Putting women on submarines sounds like one of the most counter-productive ideas I've heard in a long time. Submarines have been equiped with nuclear engines and large food stores so they can remain at sea for months upon months upon months. Putting a woman on board would totally defeat this. The sub would have to be altered to accomodate seperate quarters, heads, etc. for women. Hardly a good idea. What good is it to have a submarine capable of being submerged for months if you have to constantly dock so you can switch out your pregnant crew members? I'm not a Navy man, but maybe there is one here you can tell you how long after a ship leaves dock before the female crew members get knocked up. I'm willing to wager it's the same length of time a pregnancy test says is the earliest it can detect pregnancy.

XWING5
04-27-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by munik
Anyone who thinks that women should be included in the draft have never had to serve with women. It may sound like such a great idea while you sit in your plush sofa, but you may think differently when you are the one that has to pick up their slack and carry their dead weight.

Putting women on submarines sounds like one of the most counter-productive ideas I've heard in a long time. Submarines have been equiped with nuclear engines and large food stores so they can remain at sea for months upon months upon months. Putting a woman on board would totally defeat this. The sub would have to be altered to accomodate seperate quarters, heads, etc. for women. Hardly a good idea. What good is it to have a submarine capable of being submerged for months if you have to constantly dock so you can switch out your pregnant crew members? I'm not a Navy man, but maybe there is one here you can tell you how long after a ship leaves dock before the female crew members get knocked up. I'm willing to wager it's the same length of time a pregnancy test says is the earliest it can detect pregnancy.

Whoa, back up just a sec. That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. I am a female in the Army and I am here to tell you, that NO ONE picks up my dead weight. Now obviously, logistically, it would not be smart to draft a female to work on a sub, it would be comparable to drafting a female to the infantry. However, I know for a fact that the Navy has other jobs. You've seen the commercials advertising the 212 ways to be a soldier in the Army. Are you saying women can't work in Commanding roles for MI, MP, Quartermaster, Pilot, etc? There are so many support elements that could be filled, that need to be filled, and would be filled successfully by women. And you know, if the sailors can't stay away from the female on a sub, maybe they both need to be kicked off the sub and go to some profesionalism classes.
If women want equality, then they need to get it on all fronts. Not just the pick and choose cause the femi-nazis out there decide on. And that includes miltary service. There are many physical and physiological differences that will always have to be accounted for and there will never be total equality for any group (because no one is perfect), but it has been getting better, and it always will.

C'jais
04-27-2003, 12:22 PM
First of all, women do indeed serve a role in the army. While I don't think they can be placed in direct front-line ground forces, they are serving in support roles, aboard warships and as pilots - "Five-by-five, we're in the pipe". In fact, I've heard of a female F15 pilot. Pretty cool.

There are a number of problems with women in ground forces:

Soldiers are expected, and sometimes required to go for several weeks without proper bathing and hygeine. While men will stink like a pig, women have the additional problem of yeast infections.

Most men are raised to protect and take care of females first and foremost. If I were to see a wounded female in my squad and was required to proceed with the objectives at hand, I'd hesitate. I'd probably place a lot of attention on the woman to make sure she was okay. Granted, this attitude can change, but I don't see it doing it for a long time.

Then there's the problem with female POWs getting raped. Of course, things are being done to male POWs that are equally gruesome, but the public doesn't make that distinction.

Physical strengh. Men are stronger, for a reason. A male soldier can haul a wounded soldier out of the the line of fire, but I doubt most females would be capable of doing this. Really, while it may sound sexist, it is a problem in this case.

Eagle, I don't think females have better balance or strategic thinking. It's said that women are better at "multi-tasking", while men are better at concentrating. I don't know what to believe anymore.

http://www.msnbc.com/c/0/146/819/10x7/030331_iraqss11a_02.jpg

EDIT: Oops! Saw the nudity hidden in that image. Link removed.

BTW, females are usually better pilots than men, and their short height makes for less strain when facing high G.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/waterman.html

XWING5
04-27-2003, 01:00 PM
I can't really argue with you too much there C'Jais. I don't think that men are ready to fight amongst women on the battlefield. Hell, in some cases they won't fight with other men (but that is a whole other thread.) But I gotta say, in all honesty (and I am not for women fighting infantry as the situation stands), I have seen women who could do the job, and plenty of men who I wouldn't want next to me in a foxhole. Everything is relative to the person. You know how firemen must pass a sort of physically strenuous entrance exam? Well, that could be done with the Infantry. If you measure up, male or female, you are in. However, for the reasons you mentioned, it is just not the time. I will never be allowed to join Special Forces. My daughter wouldn't be able to (and I wouldn't want her to), but maybe the grandkids. Equality has been a long time coming, but it is constantly changing. I am just thankful for what we are allowed to do as compared to when my mom was growing up.

PS I don't actually have a daughter, but hypothetically I still wouldn't want her on the front lines. Scares me to death that she might be out there, so I understand society as a whole not ready to send their wives or daughters out there.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-27-2003, 01:48 PM
Eagle, I don't think females have better balance or strategic thinking.
Okay, but it would seem they do. They get into skiing a bit faster than guys, and they tend to fall less.

But I might be wrong:).

Munik, did you watch JAG by any chance? You sound like you're quoting that guy opposing the female character joining that sub.. one of the only episodes I ever saw:).

Hmm... you know, the Norwegian navy has women in our subs as far as I know, but we don't have any ICBM Missile Subs (thank my God:)) that are intended to stay down for months.

However, we do send submarines with girls on them on missions far from home (we sent a sub with a woman on it to Afghanistan, for example). How we do it, I don't know, but what I do know is it doesn't take much to "add separate quarters". Maybe all they do is add this temporary wall separating the male's beds from the females' beds.

My point is, it's perfectly possible. Why? It's being done. We also have women in infantry divisions, as far as I know.

The pregnancy argument is ridiculous. Just ban sex on submarines. If you get pregnant, you and your lover(s) are thrown headfirst out in the first port you get to, then shipped home. Zero tolerance.

Girls are raped
Well, you sign up for war knowing you can get killed. Isn't that almost as bad, or worse (I'd rather get killed than abused)? And men are sexually abused too, aren't they?

XWING5
04-27-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
If you get pregnant, you and your lover(s) are thrown headfirst out in the first port you get to, then shipped home. Zero tolerance.

Hahahahahaha. Good plan!

C'jais
04-27-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Okay, but it would seem they do. They get into skiing a bit faster than guys, and they tend to fall less.

I don't have much to compare with, but it took my mother a long time to learn skiing, and the only reason she doesn't fall much is because she's always being extra-careful never to do anything even remotely wild on skis.

My point is, it's perfectly possible. Why? It's being done. We also have women in infantry divisions, as far as I know.

Yup, but they're there of their own free will, right? They aren't being drafted into infantry divisions. Still, I think you're talking about females in support roles, logistics etc. Those are an invaluable part of the military.

Well, you sign up for war knowing you can get killed. Isn't that almost as bad, or worse (I'd rather get killed than abused)? And men are sexually abused too, aren't they?

Hehe, I know what you mean, man.

But still, to the public, getting raped ranks as one of the worst crimes, sometimes even worse than getting outright killed.

Imagine the reaction of the public if your entire squad was captured by the enemy - half of it were women. Now, all the women are getting raped, and all the men are getting their teeth pulled out without anaesthetics. Which gender gets the most attention, do you think? And then, imagine if it those women had "just" got killed instead - that wouldn't have been much of a fuss, would it?

Simply put, the public isn't ready to see this kind of thing happening to their neighbor's daughter.

C'jais
04-27-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by XWING5
I can't really argue with you too much there C'Jais. I don't think that men are ready to fight amongst women on the battlefield. Hell, in some cases they won't fight with other men (but that is a whole other thread.) But I gotta say, in all honesty (and I am not for women fighting infantry as the situation stands), I have seen women who could do the job, and plenty of men who I wouldn't want next to me in a foxhole. Everything is relative to the person. You know how firemen must pass a sort of physically strenuous entrance exam? Well, that could be done with the Infantry. If you measure up, male or female, you are in.

No point arguing here, no - I agree very much.

Of course there are women who'd be capable of running away from the frontline with her fellow soldier on the back, and of course there are men who would panic when in a trench for the first time. But in general, it's rare. Women in general are just not built to fight as much as a man is, but there are plenty of exceptions. And if you're one of the exceptions, I can't see what's stopping you.

But then again, there are a number of issues with establishing this test of sorts, and I can't see it working in a time where the country needs a lot of soldiers - many men would end up not passing the test, and even more women. A lot of waste, in this regard. Better to let all the men there's available be molded into soldiers the best way possible.

munik
04-27-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by XWING5
However, I know for a fact that the Navy has other jobs. You've seen the commercials advertising the 212 ways to be a soldier in the Army. Are you saying women can't work in Commanding roles for MI, MP, Quartermaster, Pilot, etc? There are so many support elements that could be filled, that need to be filled, and would be filled successfully by women.If you are drafted, you are sent to whatever branch needs you. Now, I don't know about the Army, but I know that in the Marine Corps, every Marine is a Rifleman, first and foremost. Your occupation is secondary. You may have been able to carry your weight, but that does not hold true across the board. Every run we did, every hump, every physically demanding excercise, our women always were in the back with the dropouts. Everytime. Now, I'm not saying women cannot serve. I'm saying that they cannot serve in a combat role, support or otherwise. Draft women if you want, but stick them in the airforce or something. They would still be in an unequal position.

Originally posted by XWING5
And you know, if the sailors can't stay away from the female on a sub, maybe they both need to be kicked off the sub and go to some profesionalism classes.I reckon you are of a decent age. Are you suggesting that it's unprofessional to have sex? Everyone has sex, to deny that and call it unprofessional is like calling it a sin. Do you think that if you put 150 men and 10 women in a very, very confined space for the better part of half a year that they should not have sex? Just sit around, rubbing one out?

Originally posted by C'jais
Most men are raised to protect and take care of females first and foremost. If I were to see a wounded female in my squad and was required to proceed with the objectives at hand, I'd hesitate. I'd probably place a lot of attention on the woman to make sure she was okay. Granted, this attitude can change, but I don't see it doing it for a long time.I believe that your training would guide you through such a situation. Running away and fear are also instinct for humans, and that is something that combat training acknowledges and attempts to overcome. I don't think I would falter on the sole basis that it was a woman who got killed or injured.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
...ICBM Missile Subs...I know what you are talking about, but I must say that there aren't such things as ICBM Subs. Submarines are not considered continents. They carry ballistic missiles, not icbms.

XWING5
04-28-2003, 12:11 AM
I reckon you are of a decent age. Are you suggesting that it's unprofessional to have sex? Everyone has sex, to deny that and call it unprofessional is like calling it a sin. Do you think that if you put 150 men and 10 women in a very, very confined space for the better part of half a year that they should not have sex? Just sit around, rubbing one out?

What I am saying is that if two soldiers can't perform as such and one soldier hinders the mission and has to be removed from her position, then that is unprofessional. I am not naive, nor going to sit here and deny that such things happen. But it is unprofessional if the branch you serve trains you and puts you down in a sub to do a particular job and then you throw it out the window for a lil fun.

XWING5
04-28-2003, 12:17 AM
If you are drafted, you are sent to whatever branch needs you. Now, I don't know about the Army, but I know that in the Marine Corps, every Marine is a Rifleman, first and foremost. Your occupation is secondary. You may have been able to carry your weight, but that does not hold true across the board. Every run we did, every hump, every physically demanding excercise, our women always were in the back with the dropouts. Everytime. Now, I'm not saying women cannot serve. I'm saying that they cannot serve in a combat role, support or otherwise. Draft women if you want, but stick them in the airforce or something. They would still be in an unequal position.

Actually, that isn't always true. In WWII, guys were not blindly sent out to the front lines. There outside job/qualifications were taken into consideration. If a doctor was drafted, that was recognized and he often became a medic. And I can't speak for the females in your unit, but there are several women in my unit that stay with the front of the pack during ruck marches. However, as I said earlier, it doesn't mean I favor women on the front lines. But the reasons against them not doing so are sometimes weak.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-28-2003, 12:24 AM
I reckon you are of a decent age. Are you suggesting that it's unprofessional to have sex? Everyone has sex, to deny that and call it unprofessional is like calling it a sin. Do you think that if you put 150 men and 10 women in a very, very confined space for the better part of half a year that they should not have sex? Just sit around, rubbing one out?
CO: So we're in the middle of the Pacific, at a 500 ft., at war with China, who has just launched 2 megatons of missils at the States and wiped out five cities. Now, one of their subs could potentially spot our submarine and blast it to pieces unless we evaded or our countermeasures worked. Also, there's the threat of mutiny, a traitor aboard our sub, and sabotage such as the secret poisoning of our food prior to the sub's launch. I remind you, we're in extreme danger. What is your primary suggestion of action?
Everyone: Let's f***!!!!
Er.. yeah:p

Look, if something's banned, something's banned. In a situation like the one above, people wouldn't worry about having sex. They'd worry that they might get killed. It's not like "see, Mr. President, we would have stopped those troop ships, but we were having sex..."

Also, about every navy/air force/army regulation has at some point been broken. What about the soldier in Iraq who threw a grenade at his officers' tent. Did they follow that up with a ban of soldiers on guard, not in actual combat, carrying grenades? Or of soldiers being on guard alone, not in pairs? No. But I guess if it had resulted in a pregnancy, it'd have been different?

You're right in a way, you can't stop adults from having sex more than you can keep high school students from kissing, and in many cases, having sex. However, you can keep high school students from kissing in class, and let them have to go outside of school to do it. Likewise, you should be able to keep adults from having sex on a sub. Otherwise, our beloved Iraqi Misinformation Minister might come up with something like:
"The American navy has retreated due to pregnancy! Victory is ours! Praise Saddam!":D

Okay, anyway, regardless of your position in the military, how many people agree that women should be drafted? At least to positions where they "won't get in the way"?

XWING5
04-28-2003, 12:44 AM
I am so undecided. I go back and forth. I think they should, yet I foresee so many problems. So many people would get out of ther draft because one parent would have to stay home or something like that. But yeah, if the draft were to come up again, I think it would only be fair for everyone if the draft was completely non-discriminating. Of course a lot of females would be like "Noooooo!", but a lot of guys are like that too. I just hate to hear females argue about equality when it suits them. Gives us a bad name I think.

munik
04-28-2003, 12:51 AM
Well, if you can perform your duties, then I'd be cool with it. After thinking about it for awhile, this whole women in the draft discussion is something like 40 years irrelevant. There is never going to be another draft, not in the foreseable future. But yeah, if there ever is another one, draft women too. They can catch bullets just as well as men.

XWING5
04-28-2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by munik
But yeah, if there ever is another one, draft women too. They can catch bullets just as well as men.

That's right. With our teeth..... ;)

Dagobahn Eagle
05-06-2003, 01:15 AM
Just to make a wild jump here:

Who else than me would want to grow up in a society where everthing was unisex and children were raised the same way, regardless of gender?

I'm not asking because I'm perverted, but because I think the gender gap is a bad thing ("gender roles", etc.). Boys should be allowed to be as open as girls, for example. And as for the unisex thing: Why not? If they grow up in it, it'll be normal to them. And if you don't want people to see your naked body, wear a bathsuit:p.

C'jais
05-07-2003, 11:45 AM
I'm with you Eagle, but I can't see it happening in the next 200 years. It's still something we should strive towards, though, for obvious reasons.

Gender roles are there for a reason. There are things men are better at than women (like being a modern soldier, though that may change), and vice versa.

The draft exists in my country, and I've already listed some practical issues with women getting drafted. Of course, if they're just as able as men, then let them join. Another problem with having women on the frontline is that when the female population takes a drastic drop from casualties, the birth rate isn't going to compensate.

ShadowTemplar
05-08-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Next, sexual abuse and the likes. You know a woman can get away with staring and sometimes even stalking a good deal easier than a guy.

'Cause it's not as common.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Having a baby doesn't exactly bring a submarine anywhere:).

What makes that sub sail is money as much as it's crew. No babies -> no money (or, for that matter, crew) -> stranded sub.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
IMO, the fact that girls aren't drafted is one of the most sexist problems in society. Think: How long would womens' right movements tolerate it if girls had to do something that guys didn't have to do?

Like having to bear children? Even if they don't want the child?

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I agree, but "men and women" sounds to informal, and citizens could imply (I know you didn't mean it that way) that all non- US citizens living in the States are created differently (well, we are, but still:p). What about "humans"?

BTW, I believe "man" is an old way of saying "human", as in "mankind" instead of "humankind", so the constitution could meaning "humans", maybe? Anyone know?

It is.

(we sent a sub with a woman on it to Afghanistan, for example)

Eer... Am I the only one who can't see what a submersible would be doing in mountain war?

I'm against women in a general draft. Why? Well, I'm against a general draft, for one thing.

For another, if general draft was to have any meaning, it would mean that someone somewhere high up was counting on a lot of them not getting back. And men are far more expendable than women (for obvious reasons).

Dagobahn Eagle
05-08-2003, 11:46 AM
--Like having to bear children? Even if they don't want the child?

No one have to bear children. You can have an abortion or you can have an operation of some kind to get the baby out alive without giving birth. That's got nothing to do with drafting anyhow.

-- Eer... Am I the only one who can't see what a submersible would be doing in mountain war?

Patrolling the seas outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Same as sending the USS enterprise to a desert war. Of course it's not going trough the desert, but it's patrolling the seas and being an airbase.

ShadowTemplar
05-08-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
-- Eer... Am I the only one who can't see what a submersible would be doing in mountain war?

Patrolling the seas outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Same as sending the USS enterprise to a desert war. Of course it's not going trough the desert, but it's patrolling the seas and being an airbase.

Yeah. Forgot to add the j/k. Sovvy. Me bad (but just picture it for a moment: Red October ploughing through the Afghani mountains, lol).

marichui
05-10-2003, 08:18 AM
look ever isnce the start of time.......... blah blah blah(we'll skip the history) Over time women have been ignored and now we are finally getting our voice heard we can vote , work, learn, participate n sports too. but seroiusly we are all sexist. ik or examplle we say men can't wear make up or can't cook or shouldn't cook or something or other. (it' really early ok)like men say tht women can'tbe president.(some say no some say yes) somepeople think



men-work for themoney do aall the financial work
women-take care of house cooking kids school of kids and other
stuff

Dagobahn Eagle
05-10-2003, 01:58 PM
Welcome to the boards, Marichui.

men-work for themoney do aall the financial work
women-take care of house cooking kids school of kids and other
stuff
That is pretty much the stereotype.

About female drafting: I think they should be, but you're right, there are some fields where men would do better (unless, of course, you've got some female candidates who are better than men:)).

Make-up.. thing is, most men don't want to wear make-up anyway. We think it looks good on girls, horrible on boys. We're kind of strange that way:p.

My example would be hugging and physical contact. For crying out loud, girls can kiss without anyone looking twice at them for it, but if boys do as much as hug, we're labelled as "homos". By some girls, even.

About presidentism, I don't think that's the people's job anyway, but the task of the people-elected political party, who by law can't appoint a president on basis of colour, heritgage, gender, partner's gender, etc. But that's a different discussion:).

munik
05-12-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Patrolling the seas outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Same as sending the USS enterprise to a desert war. Of course it's not going trough the desert, but it's patrolling the seas and being an airbase. Afghanistan is a landlocked country, and Iraq is landlocked for the most part except for a tiny bit of coast on the Persian Gulf. Naval ships are used as transportation, and carriers for their mobility, but not sure of foreign submarines. The States use them as nuclear ballistic missile platforms, and can be used for ballistic missile strikes, but I don't know if the sub he said was sent to afganistan has those capabilities. Also, landlocked countries usually don't have proficient navies, so patrolling the closest sea is a tad irrelevent.

As for makeup on guys, I knew of a guy who would use some concealer around his eyes to cover the dark spots. Never would have known if someone didn't tell me they caught him doing it. As for being called a homo for it, or for any reason, is a little juvenile. As is being worried that someone might call you a homo. I imagine a man who uses makeup is probaly secure enough in his sexuality to brush off such a comment.

ShadowTemplar
05-20-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by munik
The States use them as nuclear ballistic missile platforms, and can be used for ballistic missile strikes, but I don't know if the sub he said was sent to afganistan has those capabilities. Also, landlocked countries usually don't have proficient navies, so patrolling the closest sea is a tad irrelevent.

OFF TOPIC: The sub ("Sælen") was, I believe, not equipped to launch missiles, which wasn't its job either. It, along with the corvette (Olfert Fisher), were to monitor the sea off-shore from Iraq, in order to track and possibly intercept ships that had no business in the area, as well as generally reporting the going-ons of the area (help in catching blokade runners, illegal arms dealers, smugglers, ect. that the war was likely to stir up), not for combatting the almost non-existing navy of Iraq.