Men as Providers

[MarginOfError]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree. The physical limitations of a woman already give her a natural roadblock in some jobs that you can't really remove.

It really is like talking to a brick wall.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

It really is like talking to a brick wall.

Does it matter? He's fighting a battle he can't win. Women are firefighters, police officers, engineers, fighting in combat. It doesn't matter if someone stomps their feet and whines about it. 

[NeuroTypical]

I'll go with this, and defend it vigorously. 

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

What it actually means, is arguable. 

[MarginOfError]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Does it matter? He's fighting a battle he can't win. Women are firefighters, police officers, engineers, fighting in combat. It doesn't matter if someone stomps their feet and whines about it. 

but...but....someone on the internet is WRONG!!!!

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

First, note that those are general admittance requirements to be eligible for the Marine Corp. They do not specify the physical requirements for any particular job. And it's a little bit ridiculous to classify everything in the Marine Corp as the same job.

That said, there is also a problem with the publication of different standards for men and women.  If there are jobs available to may be performed when only meeting the lower physical standards, why are they not available to men who can meet the lower standard but not the higher standard?  That could qualify as sex-based discrimination! The standards for admittance to the Marine Corp should be the same for men and women. And the standards for acceptance to any particular job in the Marine Corp (some/many of which will exceed the standard for general admittance) should be the same for men and women. 

I agree that the same standard should be enforced regardless of gender. So then, why are the standards lower for women? Because they don't perform at the same standards as men do. If the Marines are "the best", then why do we have a subpar standard available?

[MarginOfError]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree that the same standard should be enforced regardless of gender. So then, why aren't the standards lower for men? 

I fixed your question.

[Guest]

Quote

Jerky man asking a highly muscled female:

Hey, Sanchez.  Have you ever been mistaken for a man?

No, have you?

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

It really is like talking to a brick wall.

Now you see why I ignore him.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I fixed your question.

Please don't change the quote.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now you see why I ignore him.

You don't ignore me. People who ignore don't participate by listening.

[Rob Osborn]

35 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Does it matter? He's fighting a battle he can't win. Women are firefighters, police officers, engineers, fighting in combat. It doesn't matter if someone stomps their feet and whines about it. 

Sure there are women in these positions, at least a few of them. The point I am making is that we shouldn't be so worried about gender equality in jobs that tailor more to men's abilities and desires. The sexes aren't really equal when it comes to physical labor.

[JohnsonJones]

30 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Sure there are women in these positions, at least a few of them. The point I am making is that we shouldn't be so worried about gender equality in jobs that tailor more to men's abilities and desires. The sexes aren't really equal when it comes to physical labor.

In regards to SOME types of physical labor, I absolutely agree.  The things people do to try to even things out simply weaken the goals or objectives one is trying to achieve.

I think the military requirements are a prime example.  For an Infantry man, when in combat, do you want someone there who cannot haul you out in a decent manner of time and effect if you are seriously wounded?

Someone mentioned 40 mile hikes.  Not so long ago (well, maybe to some of you it was long ago) infantry patrols DID hike that far and MORE in the middle of war.  You carried as much as you could on your back, because once you were out of ammo, food, and other items there was no one to refresh your supplies.  Physically, you want the most fit and able.  It is no offense that most women are not going to be able to excel better than men do in this.  The thing is, in this situation, these components can become a matter of life and death.  It doesn't matter how equality minded we want to be, death does not care, and an enemy does not care about who they are going to kill or the road to defeat us.

On the otherhand I believe today they have general entry requirements and infantry PT requirements.  If they have lower requirements for women, I would find that regrettable as it should be standard between both.  When an enemy is trying to chase you down and kill you, it does not care if you are a man or women.  If you can't keep up, then you will die.  If you slow your entire platoon down...your entire platoon will die.  It doesn't matter how much you want to believe in equal rights in this situation, the enemy normally will not care.  They just want to kill you and defeat your forces.  They are an equal opportunity death dealer.  As such, if combating such equality, we should have equal standards for anyone who is entering that particular field (infantry).  We should also strive to have the best and most fit to be in those fields, be the ones fighting that battle.

I believe this has been one reason NOT to include women in the draft in the past.  Those drafted some years ago were funneled towards certain types of jobs and fields in many instances.

On other fronts, I think equality is a great arena to strive for.  I have some very intelligent daughters.  I feel if they put their mind to it, in almost every field out there they could compete with the best of them.  I think that lowering standards for women OR MEN (and yes, there are many areas where I think women probably can outshine men in general) to equal the playing field is probably a mistake.  We should strive to have the brightest and best in each field be the ones pushing the way forward so that we can stay at the top of the technical, military, and industrial food chain for the World.

Edited December 12, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Physically, you want the most fit and able.  It is no offense that most women are not going to be able to excel better than men do in this.

The thing is that even men who are very small, skinny, and weak are expected to do these things and they end up doing them because it is required of them.  Women should be able to as much.  But because it is not required of them, most don't.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Guest

[JohnsonJones]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The thing is that even men who are very small, skinny, and weak are expected to do these things and they end up doing them because it is required of them.  Women should be able to as much.  But because it is not required of them, most don't.

If women can match what the men's infantry requirements are to be effective, by all means they could be allowed in.  Most cannot.  I'd keep the PT requirements as high as they've always been and if women can meet those requirements I have no problem with them trying to be in the infantry.  However, most woman can't even do the minimum number of pushups (and if you just do the minimum in all the requirements, you will flunk out) that are required for a man, and though more can meet the minimum run requirements, many cannot.

A guy who is skinny in many instances is still stronger then a majority of women after he has gone through either a several month long boot camp, OR has been in the field (and not been killed) for two or three months.  In fact, most of those who are stuck in the infantry do not look like Arnold Schwarzenegger if they've been in the field for a while, they may appear skinnier then you may think (but it is ALL muscle in that skinny body, though maybe no skinny per se, but not mass bulk muscle guy either...reasonably fit).

Edited December 12, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[boxer]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

As the site's resident engineer, I'll let you in on a little secret.  It doesn't take a lot of brain power to be an engineer.  True, you can't really succeed without being at least average.  But the way things are set up, the day-to-day engineer can be perfectly capable with only an average IQ score (which, BTW, is 100, not 80).

Average IQ depends on the subset of the population you are looking at.

It really is one of the mind-boggling things that smart people say that really belies their actual intelligence.  They under-estimate the actual brain-power it requires to do something.  They say things like the above. Maybe it's a psychological self-deprecating humble-brag or something. They don't really want to say they are smart or think most people are like them so they say the above.

And like I've said before, when your social group is smart people (which most engineers social group is), you have no clue as to who the not smart people are.  And you yourself admit "you can't really succeed without being at least average" . . no duh!  College used to be a filter, a smart-people filter, smart people (generally speaking) went to college and got a degree.  People who weren't so smart, just graduated high school.  Then insteading of looking at the fact that intelligence is a huuuuge driver of success, we said . . .well since people who go to college to really well, let's send everyone to college!  So then the standards got lowered for getting to college b/c going to college determines success. Well now you have a bunch of smart and not so smart people getting college degrees, what's the filter?  GPA, or an advanced degree!

You say it doesn't take brain power to be an engineer . . .bull.  An engineer is fundamentally someone who builds, creates, designs, INNOVATES. You can not consistently innovate over long stretches of period of time without brain power.  Yes you could teach the low intelligence person what a for loop is . . .big deal. Now teach them about inheritence, polymorphism, NTP, server racks, URL get/sets, WSF, etc. etc. etc. etc.  It takes a lot of brain power to actually engineer-to hold all that information in your head, to know what it means, to utilize it.  Brain power isn't about memorization . . .it's about solving problems.  And not just know those things, but know how they INTERACT, know that when you do x now y might happen in the future. That takes brain power.

It is honestly stunning that we are even having this type of conversation when it is so bloody obvious . . .unless you've never had to step outside your own bubble and actually deal with regular joes, then you get think to yourself . . .well it really doesn't take that much brain power---pure hubris.

It's very much like physical strength.  You can make someone stronger by strength training-but there is just simply a limit to the strength each person has that once reached no matter much you train, it won't increase.  Same with brain power-you can make people smarter given them certain tools, but once they reach their limit, nothing you do will increase their ability.

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by boxer

[JohnsonJones]

26 minutes ago, boxer said:

You say it doesn't take brain power to be an engineer . . .bull.  An engineer is fundamentally someone who builds, creates, designs, INNOVATES. You can not consistently innovate over long stretches of period of time without brain power.  Yes you could teach the low intelligence person what a for loop is . . .big deal. Now teach them about inheritence, polymorphism, NTP, server racks, URL get/sets, WSF, etc. etc. etc. etc.  It takes a lot of brain power to actually engineer-to hold all that information in your head, to know what it means, to utilize it.  Brain power isn't about memorization . . .it's about solving problems.  And not just know those things, but know how they INTERACT, know that when you do x now y might happen in the future. That takes brain power.

This just told me that @anatess2 has a LOT more brain power than I do.

I don't understand half the stuff you just said in your fifth sentence there. 

Of course, I can hit a jack rabbit at 100 yards and then skin and clean it in less than a minute.  I can shoot an elk at over 300 yards and be able to skin and clean it on my own still.  I can also do a rudimentary or acceptable job at butchering it (though giving to a real butcher will give me cleaner and better cuts).

I know how to drive a gear shift, and how to start a fire from hot coals.  I can build a decent shelter with just rope and whatever is around me, and know what life is like without a TV, cell phone, or computer.  I can ride and care for a horse and drive a wagon.

But, I am terrible with technology.  You math and tech guys I suppose all have more brain power than I, but take away electricity and I bet I could do decently better at survival than many who grew up in our modern age!

What does this have to do with anything...not much...just makes me feel a little better that I am not completely useless compared to the brains out there.

PS: I suppose this is the age of computers.  In these areas and fields there are many bright people, both men and women and many geniuses of both.  They ALL can outdo me in this arena, it's a time period where those of my generation are mostly settling in the unseen masses.  A few of my generation are probably on top of this technology, but I fall in the group which is not as talented or able to adapt in this modern computer era.  So, yes, I think @anatess2 is probably exceedingly bright and intelligent and far more able to succeed in this era with these things than I ever would be able to do, and that goes for all you other individuals that are doing math and tech stuff (such as @Carborendum and others!)  [I think @zil and @SilentOne are also those who are very smart with technology if I recall, so more who are very bright and intelligent and able in our modern age].

Edited December 12, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Colirio]

When speaking of women in combat, there is a part of the job description that often gets ignored. Part of military training consists of what to do when taken as prisoner of war. 

 

We can pretend that the international laws will protect POW's all we want, but female soldiers taken as POW's are not going to receive the same treatement that male POW's receive... 

 

Being able to perform other parts of the job might not disqualify women from these roles, but this part of the job description should. 

[anatess2]

54 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of course, I can hit a jack rabbit at 100 yards and then skin and clean it in less than a minute.  I can shoot an elk at over 300 yards and be able to skin and clean it on my own still.  I can also do a rudimentary or acceptable job at butchering it (though giving to a real butcher will give me cleaner and better cuts).

I know how to drive a gear shift, and how to start a fire from hot coals.  I can build a decent shelter with just rope and whatever is around me, and know what life is like without a TV, cell phone, or computer.  I can ride and care for a horse and drive a wagon.

But, I am terrible with technology.  You math and tech guys I suppose all have more brain power than I, but take away electricity and I bet I could do decently better at survival than many who grew up in our modern age!

A lot of people say they are bad at math and then clean up a fresh rack at billiards.  Or shoot a basketball.  Or give Neal Pert competition.  Or build a shelter.  Or a rope bridge.  Or shoot a jack rabbit at 100 yards... All activities that display pretty good math skills.

Math is useless unless it is applied.  Regardless of whether you learned math at Engineering School or through DIY hunt-and-peck-trial-and-error... it's the same math.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

A lot of people say they are bad at math and then clean up a fresh rack at billiards.  Or shoot a basketball.  Or give Neal Pert competition.  Or build a shelter.  Or a rope bridge.  Or shoot a jack rabbit at 100 yards... All activities that display pretty good math skills.

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I fixed your question.

You didn't fix it, you changed it.  Standards for jobs that were traditionally male were formed based on the minimum requirements to do the job, typically.  The requirements for women were formed because they could t meet the minimum requirements for the job, again, typically.  I've seen the first had effects of this in the military and firefighting.  

The military is changing to a single requirement for specific jobs that is gender neutral. I think that is a good standard to follow.  

Edited December 12, 2018 by Grunt

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

You didn't fix it, you changed it.  Standards for jobs that were traditionally male were formed based on the minimum requirements to do the job, typically.  The requirements for women were formed because they could t meet the minimum requirements for the job, again, typically.  I've seen the first had effects of this in the military and firefighting.  

The military is changing to a single requirement for specific jobs that is gender neutral. I think that is a good standard to follow.  

As someone who is in the military, do you have a problem with serving on the front line with women? Remember, I know nothing about the military so forgive me if my terminology is outdated or wrong. 

[Grunt]

Just now, MormonGator said:

As someone who is in the military, do you have a problem with serving on the front line with women? Remember, I know nothing about the military so forgive me if my terminology is outdated or wrong. 

Tough question.   The personal answer is I just want someone who can do the job.  The real answer is far more complex.  What's more important, equality or combat effectiveness?   The emotional reaction of men to women dead, wounded, or even in danger is different than that ofother men.   Men have a natural instinct to protect women.  This can cause issues in combat.  Isolated deployments of mixed units can have issues same sex units don't.  

All of these things affect combat readiness and morale.  Will forced integration eventually change that?  I don't know.  I serve with what they give me.  

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

What's more important, equality or combat effectiveness?

Or...something else entirely?

[Guest MormonGator]

Do women fight on the front line in the Israeli Defense forces? I've heard rumors but I don't know the answer. 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Do women fight on the front line in the Israeli Defense forces? I've heard rumors but I don't know the answer. 

The dynamic is completely different.  It's more of a police action.