Does anyone else not believe in feminism?
LKL wrote:
alwayswrong wrote:
One issue I have that feminist won't approach is registering for the draft. If my son doesn't do this he can't get financial aid. But my girls don't have to. Feminist don't see this as an issue or relevant.
*sigh*
First of all, 'registering for the draft' currently has no real-world impact other than the time taken to fill out the card. We do not have a draft in the US, and have not had one for decades. No branch of the military wants to return to the draft.
Second, getting women allowed on the front lines has been a sub-cause within feminism for decades, because people who wish to make the military their career do not get promoted unless they have actual battlefield experience. Gender segregation in the military by level of danger (or by submarine/non submarine) is one way that gender roles are enforced in the military. Because of feminism, some occupations (such as 'pilot') are now based on physical criteria alone (ie, is the person the right height, can they pass the necessary physical tests, do they have adequate eyesight, etc) rather than disqualifying otherwise passing women.
It has no real world impact for women, that is why it is seen as irrelevant. We may not have had a draft but not registering means:
Disqualified from federal jobs
Disqualified from federal job training
Disqualified from Student Aid
Disqualification from citizenship for immigrants
Denial of drivers licenses in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia;
These for boys/men are very relevant. Do you know how many jobs you miss out on if you can't get a driver's licenses? If a FASFA isn't filled out and government financial aid denied this can affect other scholarships and funding.
My mom is retired Air Force, I am prior service. I know much about women in the military. It isn't that I don't believe in the powers and what feminism can do. I just feel it, in its current form is starting to run a muck.
I believe us women are not always taking responsibly when we should and want to blame it on others (men). Feminism
alwayswrong, you're preaching to the choir. LKL agreed with you, and i agree too. what are you doing to change this inequality?
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
91 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Quote:
Here is the secret to surviving one of these [airplane] crashes: Be male. In a 1970 Civil Aeromedical institute study of three crashes involving emergency evacuations, the most prominent factor influencing survival was gender (followed closely by proximity to exit). Adult males were by far the most likely to get out alive. Why? Presumably because they pushed everyone else out of the way.
Mary Roach, Stiff: The Curious Life of Human Cadavers (link)
Here is the report you are looking for:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medi ... M63-15.pdf
When the Titanic went down people respected the 'women and children first' mentality, when the Lusitania was torpedoed around the same time they did not. The key point was time, the Lusitania sank quickly the Titanic did not (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/11/4862). The Costa Concordia did not sink quickly, so the Titanic conclusion ought to apply, but society is not what it used to be and the 'women and children first' mentality was no where to be found.
The majority of men died in the Titanic due to the "women and children first" policy while most women and children were saved. The numbers were grossly disproportionate. How does that square with the idea that men are more likely to survive due to being stronger?
Also in maritime law, there is no "women and children first policy" when a ship sinks. The idea is that all passengers are supposed to be saved and the only people who are supposed to get preferential treatment in an emergency situation like that are disabled people so that they can get to the lifeboats in time. On the Concordia, it was some passengers who wanted to enforce an informal policy of "women and children first" but strictly speaking, it should be "passengers first, staff last".
91 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
emergency situation the most likely survivors are young healthy males because they are bigger and stronger. one of the strongest predictors of survival in a plane crash is to be a young healthy male. people usually seek to save themselves and will do everything they can to survive, even if that means climbing over little old ladies or pushing kids out of the way to get to safety. but maybe the costant mantra of "women and children first" will allow some females and kids to survive too.
I believe that women and children should go first because as a male who is physically strong I see my reason for having this strength as existing only so that I can protect those who are not necessary capable of defending themselves. Men are strong only so that they can meet their responsibility to protect others. Men who use their strength otherwise are not worthy of the name.
91 wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
Esther Vilar calls this "The Manipulated Man" effect, which is strangely synonymous with "The Male Chauvinist Pig" self-reviewed policy of self-righteousness.
Tadzio
Tadzio
They can call it whatever they like. I have heard freedom called repression before, so lets not equivocate. A man is strong, so he can protect people, the inverse is a terrible world to live in; because in both men are still generally naturally stronger. That reality will come out some other way, so the only answer we really have to offer men, is discipline and responsibility and I can't see any good reason why we should think this is a bad idea. A man dedicated to an idea can be called a slave to it, but only by someone who does not appreciate the virtues of the position he is taking.
91 wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
Hi 91,
The prejudicial assumption based upon only the bigotry that "man is strong" is nonsense. I don't wish to be subjected to the consequences of such nonsense. The myth of "man is strong" is as bad as the Aryan Myth, and the big batch of lies underlying homophobia, plus all the other bigotries. And, bigoted nonsense is not a virtue, no matter the degree of loquacious fluff of "He-Man Mr. Universe Arnold".
Tadzio
The prejudicial assumption based upon only the bigotry that "man is strong" is nonsense. I don't wish to be subjected to the consequences of such nonsense. The myth of "man is strong" is as bad as the Aryan Myth, and the big batch of lies underlying homophobia, plus all the other bigotries. And, bigoted nonsense is not a virtue, no matter the degree of loquacious fluff of "He-Man Mr. Universe Arnold".
Tadzio
Let us start out by establishing that I did not claim that 'man is strong', rather I stated that 'men are in general stronger'. The former is a statement of ideology, the latter is philological reality (http://jp.physoc.org/content/338/1/37.abstract). It is not prejudicial to state that something which is, is. Some women can claim that they do not want to know the difference or can argue that it might be better to ignore it, but I think it is better to accept the reality.
Women have rights and deserve a fair go, they also, generally, live longer. It is not prejudicial to state the reality that women generally live longer; there is no statement of quality in this reality, it simply is. As such, we as a society need to recognize that there are actual differences between genders. Men are generally stronger, I think the best way to react to this is to accept that this strength, ought to come with a sense of instilled discipline and responsibility. A responsibility to protect others who are generally physically weaker, whatever gender or age, from physical threat. Men will seek to use discharge their strength, better that they do so in defense of others, rather than at the expense of others.
The problem with the male gender is not that they step up to meet their responsibilities, its that they increasingly don't. As such, when disasters like the Costa Concordia happen, the Captain is the first off the ship and people react more like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueh_1PeJhaQ
I personally would rather have Edward Smith as my ship's captain than I would Francesco Schettino.
Hi 91,
I'm sorry 91, but your variations of "man is strong" is repeated so many times here, that your unctuous, oleaginous, and saponaceous re-wordings of such prejudice as exonerating excuses aren't going to fly.
Face it, your "Men are strong only so that they can meet their responsibility to protect others" line is just code-speak for a newer version of "keep them barefoot and pregnant" nonsense.
Then, strength of ability has many aspects different from any steroidal numb-nuts Mt. Galaxy SuperDupperMan, as a semi-famous episode of "All In the Family" scene exemplified, with now pseudo-pregnancy kits for men to experience, often now making a similar inverse prejudicial mistake:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Family-1120/ ... Family.htm
Why would a Captain accept sail of a tub with too few lifeboats? Such position of envy is unsinkable, in arrogance at least???
Tadzio
Chipshorter
Velociraptor
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
Location: The Georgian Quarter of The Pool of Life, The Centre of The Creative Universe
Jono wrote:
The majority of men died in the Titanic due to the "women and children first" policy while most women and children were saved. The numbers were grossly disproportionate. How does that square with the idea that men are more likely to survive due to being stronger?
Also in maritime law, there is no "women and children first policy" when a ship sinks. The idea is that all passengers are supposed to be saved and the only people who are supposed to get preferential treatment in an emergency situation like that are disabled people so that they can get to the lifeboats in time. On the Concordia, it was some passengers who wanted to enforce an informal policy of "women and children first" but strictly speaking, it should be "passengers first, staff last".
Also in maritime law, there is no "women and children first policy" when a ship sinks. The idea is that all passengers are supposed to be saved and the only people who are supposed to get preferential treatment in an emergency situation like that are disabled people so that they can get to the lifeboats in time. On the Concordia, it was some passengers who wanted to enforce an informal policy of "women and children first" but strictly speaking, it should be "passengers first, staff last".
+1 The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea were formed in response to Lord Mersey's investigations into the Titanic, the Lusitania and the Empress of Ireland disasters. Now please someone show me were in The SOLAS Convention it says "women and children first"? Did Frederick William IV of Prussia ask for more lifeboats after the HMS Birkenhead disaster?
Has any one read that book Stiff? I read the faa report its a 1963 study on human survivability of extreme impacts of free-fall I haven't seen them three cases involving emergency evacuations. One what types of aircraft where involving, civil or military, plane or helicopter? Were the crashes mid-air, on land or on water? What there the evacuations methods? Did the evacuations take place on ground, in water or mid-air?
Edit: Re SOLAS I remember awhile ago someone I know working the safety industry (female and a feminist) letting me about this document Big persons in lifeboats
_________________
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. --Potter Stewart
Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. --Unknown
Last edited by Chipshorter on 25 Jan 2012, 5:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Jono wrote:
The majority of men died in the Titanic due to the "women and children first" policy while most women and children were saved. The numbers were grossly disproportionate. How does that square with the idea that men are more likely to survive due to being stronger?
The point I ws making with the Titanic, comparing it to more modern data is that the 'women and children first' mentality has changed over time. Hyperlexian gave us some data from the 60's the Costa Concordia is quite contemporary, these show that the mentality working behind these disasters has changed from what it once was. Also, I am not claiming that 'women and children first' was a policy, rather it was a societal mentality.
@Tadzio,
There is nothing specific about my mentality that would lead you logically from my statement to your conclusion that I am in favor of women barefoot and pregnant. My long-term girlfriend is a professional women, who, while being an excellent cook (I am more like Homer Simpson making cornflakes) certainly belongs at work, having a career because that is what she wants. My masculinity and my insistance upon some old-fashioned values is no threat at all to her femininity or her independence of mind.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
alwayswrong wrote:
LKL wrote:
alwayswrong wrote:
One issue I have that feminist won't approach is registering for the draft. If my son doesn't do this he can't get financial aid. But my girls don't have to. Feminist don't see this as an issue or relevant.
*sigh*
First of all, 'registering for the draft' currently has no real-world impact other than the time taken to fill out the card. We do not have a draft in the US, and have not had one for decades. No branch of the military wants to return to the draft.
Second, getting women allowed on the front lines has been a sub-cause within feminism for decades, because people who wish to make the military their career do not get promoted unless they have actual battlefield experience. Gender segregation in the military by level of danger (or by submarine/non submarine) is one way that gender roles are enforced in the military. Because of feminism, some occupations (such as 'pilot') are now based on physical criteria alone (ie, is the person the right height, can they pass the necessary physical tests, do they have adequate eyesight, etc) rather than disqualifying otherwise passing women.
It has no real world impact for women, that is why it is seen as irrelevant. We may not have had a draft but not registering means:
Disqualified from federal jobs
Disqualified from federal job training
Disqualified from Student Aid
Disqualification from citizenship for immigrants
Denial of drivers licenses in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia;
These for boys/men are very relevant.
Yes, they are. I restate, however: registering for the draft has no real-world consequence other than filling out a card. Not registering does have a significant impact, but you cannot claim that it's some sort of sexist bias towards military service when it is nothing but the remnant of a bygone age when women weren't allowed to serve. You are less likely to be drafted after you fill out your card than you are to win the megabucks lottery after you buy the ticket.
LKL wrote:
Yes, they are. I restate, however: registering for the draft has no real-world consequence other than filling out a card. Not registering does have a significant impact, but you cannot claim that it's some sort of sexist bias towards military service when it is nothing but the remnant of a bygone age when women weren't allowed to serve. You are less likely to be drafted after you fill out your card than you are to win the megabucks lottery after you buy the ticket.
What if Israel and Iran exchange fire tomorrow and WW3 starts? Then the relevance will be very very real.
donnie_darko wrote:
LKL wrote:
Yes, they are. I restate, however: registering for the draft has no real-world consequence other than filling out a card. Not registering does have a significant impact, but you cannot claim that it's some sort of sexist bias towards military service when it is nothing but the remnant of a bygone age when women weren't allowed to serve. You are less likely to be drafted after you fill out your card than you are to win the megabucks lottery after you buy the ticket.
What if Israel and Iran exchange fire tomorrow and WW3 starts? Then the relevance will be very very real.
And if that happens, do you think that maybe they'll start calling up women too? Then the relevance would be quite different. We can both play 'what if' all day, and it's basically meaningless - just like the current draft registration. It's an anachronism.
also:
http://hasbrouck.org/draft/health.html
(the above could include me, btw, depending on how quickly they used up reservists and people with prior military experience.)
LKL wrote:
And if that happens, do you think that maybe they'll start calling up women too? Then the relevance would be quite different. We can both play 'what if' all day, and it's basically meaningless - just like the current draft registration. It's an anachronism.
also:
http://hasbrouck.org/draft/health.html
(the above could include me, btw, depending on how quickly they used up reservists and people with prior military experience.)
also:
http://hasbrouck.org/draft/health.html
(the above could include me, btw, depending on how quickly they used up reservists and people with prior military experience.)
Well that will only be because of feminists fight to stop the 'denial' of women's 'right' to be in the military. I think sometimes some people get rights and responsibilities mixed up. I would personally as a pacifist rather not have the duty to sign up.
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Women and men are equal, yes, and feminists try to go for more than equality but instead superiority of women over men. It should only be equality and neither be treated as superior to the other.
This. I think what often happens with movements like Feminism (and others) is that initially, it starts out with good intentions and genuinely seeks equality. Eventually, however, people who want superiority of the group in question over the more dominant group in society get involved in the mix, thus eventually corrupting the movement and its ideas and becoming more concerned with "getting even" so to speak, as opposed to balancing things out.
_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.
donnie_darko wrote:
LKL wrote:
And if that happens, do you think that maybe they'll start calling up women too? Then the relevance would be quite different. We can both play 'what if' all day, and it's basically meaningless - just like the current draft registration. It's an anachronism.
also:
http://hasbrouck.org/draft/health.html
(the above could include me, btw, depending on how quickly they used up reservists and people with prior military experience.)
also:
http://hasbrouck.org/draft/health.html
(the above could include me, btw, depending on how quickly they used up reservists and people with prior military experience.)
Well that will only be because of feminists fight to stop the 'denial' of women's 'right' to be in the military. I think sometimes some people get rights and responsibilities mixed up. I would personally as a pacifist rather not have the duty to sign up.
One of the excuses that has always been used to deny rights to women is the denial of individual, adult agency to individual, adult women. For example, right-wingers who want to outlaw abortion often don't want to punish the women who get abortions, only the (presumably male, they seem to think) doctors who perform them; they talk about how women are pressured into abortions, how they don't really know what they're doing, and how they'll regret it later: all as if women are not capable of making adult choices for themselves, and dealing with the consequences. Defending one's country should be a right because it is an adult responsibility, and not allowing women to do so is another way of making them less than fully participatory adults.
I'm not a pacifist and couldn't realistically claim to be, though I might go AWOL or go to prison if I didn't believe in the righteousness of the particular war.
LiberalJustice wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Women and men are equal, yes, and feminists try to go for more than equality but instead superiority of women over men. It should only be equality and neither be treated as superior to the other.
This. I think what often happens with movements like Feminism (and others) is that initially, it starts out with good intentions and genuinely seeks equality. Eventually, however, people who want superiority of the group in question over the more dominant group in society get involved in the mix, thus eventually corrupting the movement and its ideas and becoming more concerned with "getting even" so to speak, as opposed to balancing things out.
*sigh*
could you provide examples of where feminists (as a group - not individual feminists proposing unique views) are trying to put women over men?