Sexism - The experiences of women and men (2 Viewers)

[AB940]

I said it before and I will say it one more time: If someone is not fit for the front line, they aren't going to be put there. For any position in the defence force, front line or more clerical, you still have to do the fitness test. My dad was in the navy because where he is from national service used to be compulsory. He was a chef on a naval vessel, and he still had to do the fitness tests. What I'm trying to get at is these are used for general entry into any position, but for the front line, they would be the same for both genders. I never said I was against this.

All you can do is allude to how incompetent you believe women to be, without giving any proof other than bogus statistics. That's not logic, not even close. And why get petty about my 'grammatical error' (wtf) when you're the one who keeps contradicting themselves. You fail to delineate between the word-for-word transcript of what you've said and what you heavily implied given the context.

 

[JohnMaximus]

I said it before and I will say it one more time: If someone is not fit for the front line, they aren't going to be put there. For any position in the defence force, front line or more clerical, you still have to do the fitness test. My dad was in the navy because where he is from national service used to be compulsory. He was a chef on a naval vessel, and he still had to do the fitness tests. What I'm trying to get at is these are used for general entry into any position, but for the front line, they would be the same for both genders. I never said I was against this.

All you can do is allude to how incompetent you believe women to be, without giving any proof other than bogus statistics. That's not logic, not even close. And why get petty about my 'grammatical error' (wtf) when you're the one who keeps contradicting themselves.

I refer you back to the first post of mine to which you responded "There a less direct ways of being responsible for death through incompetency."

You fail to delineate between the word-for-word transcript of what you've said and what you heavily implied given the context.

Also; I don't understand your use of 'delineate' in this context. Please explain

 

[jenslekman]

yay what an awesome debate!

 

[JohnMaximus]

And why get petty about my 'grammatical error' (wtf) when you're the one who keeps contradicting themselves.

Also; I'm flattered that you refer to me as multiple entities, but I assure you this is not the case (as far as I know).

 

[AB940]

I refer you back to the first post of mine to which you responded "There a less direct ways of being responsible for death through incompetency."

You were the one who said that. My god.

 

[Nooblet94]

While women are subject to a more lenient set of fitness requirements to enter the defence force, wouldn't the suitability of a role on the front line disregard gender but rather the overall competency of the candidate?

I seriously do not understand this. I was looking at the physical requirements to join the police a while ago and the standards for women were much lower. That being said, I just looked it up and the NSW police don't have any gender-specific requirements, but the AFP does - males are required to do 15 pushups and females only need 8. Criminals aren't going to think "Oh, the office arresting me is a woman, I'll take it easy on her".

Furthermore, a year or two ago I believe there was controversy about women not being allowed to serve in one of the elite US armed forces (I think it was either the marines or the seals, can't remember). A high ranking (female) officer basically said that they should abolish the ban, but they shouldn't lower the fitness entry requirements and because of this, there's still going to be barely any women serving, because it's such a physically demanding job.

you fill out a form
If you're good on the form
Then free blood

But it's the same thing
Governments aren't gonna risk someone getting HIV for political correctness
Just like ~private~ airlines should be allowed to prevent their child passengers from getting sexually assaulted.

saying bank robbery is akin to paedophilia isn't gr8 doe
One is a crime against a person and one is a crime to gain money and shit and etc.
they aren't similar enough

women aren't allowed in frontline combat though, are they?

that happens less often than paedophilia though
And there are other safeguards to stop that now.

they don't though.

also, you can get HIV from hetero sex

It wouldn't be hard to run passengers names through the database of registered sex offenders. More importantly, what kind of person would try anything like that mid-flight. Being a paedophile doesn't mean your every waking thought is about raping kids - See this.

 

[JohnMaximus]

You were the one who said that. My god.

That's not how it was meant to be read.

Let's try this again.

My first post "There a less direct ways of being responsible for death through incompetency." was the first to which you responded, and now I refer you back to it.

 

[AB940]

That's not how it was meant to be read.

Let's try this again.

My first post "There a less direct ways of being responsible for death through incompetency." was the first to which you responded, and now I refer you back to it.

What about it? I didn't say I was in favour of the lower fitness standards. I just think it's illogical to extrapolate that all deaths on the front line are caused by "incompetent women".

 

[JohnMaximus]

I just think it's illogical to extrapolate that all deaths on the front line are caused by "incompetent women".

I didn't.

That extrapolation was directed to a situation in which "women are incompetent in anything remotely physical"- an idea which I assured you, I have not implied in any way.
I have simply stated that standards are lower and hence it is possible for incompetent women to be present within ranks.

 

[AB940]

I didn't.

That extrapolation was directed to a situation in which "women are incompetent in anything remotely physical"- an idea which I assured you, I have not implied in any way.
I have simply stated that standards are lower and hence it is possible for incompetent women to be present within ranks.

I am fed up with this argument now. You said shit like 'Imagine women dropping grenades because they're too weak', '95+% of deaths would be caused by incompetent women.'

 

[bhsrepresent]

IMO most claims of sexism/ misogyny in a Western country like our own are laughable, "Too many male protagonists in video games, you damn misogynists!. If you want to see real misogyny take a trip to parts of the middle east and Africa where women genuinely don't enjoy the liberties men do.

And I think inherently, women are less competent in a specific fields due to biological difference (and vise versa, men are less competent in those areas where femininity is predisposed to thrive). If feminists claim misogyny in such a case, if anything, THEY are sexist as they assert gender as a more valuable criteria than competency in acquiring/ asserting a specific role.

For instance, examining the claim that affirmative action is justified in the workplace because females are discriminated against and are under-represented in managerial positions:
Men are over-represented in top managerial positions not because of some patriarchal ploy to oppress women; it is because men tend to have certain qualities (which tie to evolutionary factors) that such positions require, i.e.:
- Men work better through hierarchy
- Men are typically better leaders
- Men are typically more rationalistic/ right brain dominant (whereas women lean toward emotion and left brain thinking -> creativity, imaginative synthesis etc).
- Femininity ties closer to emotional desires for contentment/ altruism whereas masculinity is calculative in its nature -> men are thus better able to advance through the corporate requirements top job positions would imply

Note that I said that men tend to have these qualities (which are all rooted in evolutionary psychology/ biology by the way). I once read that most individuals in top managerial positions have been shown to carry similar traits whether they are men OR women, showing that gender is relevant only insofar as it predisposes individuals toward certain traits. But at the end of the day most men are predominantly going to be masculine and most women are going to be feminine.

Social outcomes are driven by biology; discrepancies within society don't inherently imply that sexism is present. IMO, the claim that social outcomes are sexist is discriminatory in itself, particularly when it's followed through with legislation or affirmative action (that is sexist by definition).

Judgement should be based on individual competency/ character, not gender or other discriminatory criteria. But its important to recognize that inherent biology does influence competency/ predisposition to certain roles or abilities.

 

[funkshen]

women are biologically inferior. this has been proven by science. women are are on average 59% body water, but men are only 57% body water. you can't argue with science.

 

[bhsrepresent]

women are biologically inferior. this has been proven by science. women are are on average 59% body water, but men are only 57% body water. you can't argue with science.

Generally inferior at selective tasks, sure. But the same goes with men - women are superior to men in certain fields just as men are superior in others.

Men and women are biologically different and are predisposed to being good or competent at different things. These differences are rooted in evolutionary biology and psychology, and sarcasm aside, you can't argue with science

 

[funkshen]

Generally inferior at selective tasks, sure. But the same goes with men - women are superior to men in certain fields just as men are superior in others.

Men and women are biologically different and are predisposed to being good or competent at different things. These differences are rooted in evolutionary biology and psychology, and sarcasm aside, you can't argue with science

except men actually have more body water than women.

where's your science now?

 

[Kiraken]

IMO most claims of sexism/ misogyny in a Western country like our own are laughable, "Too many male protagonists in video games, you damn misogynists!. If you want to see real misogyny take a trip to parts of the middle east and Africa where women genuinely don't enjoy the liberties men do.

And I think inherently, women are less competent in a specific fields due to biological difference (and vise versa, men are less competent in those areas where femininity is predisposed to thrive). If feminists claim misogyny in such a case, if anything, THEY are sexist as they assert gender as a more valuable criteria than competency in acquiring/ asserting a specific role.

For instance, examining the claim that affirmative action is justified in the workplace because females are discriminated against and are under-represented in managerial positions:
Men are over-represented in top managerial positions not because of some patriarchal ploy to oppress women; it is because men tend to have certain qualities (which tie to evolutionary factors) that such positions require, i.e.:
- Men work better through hierarchy
- Men are typically better leaders
- Men are typically more rationalistic/ right brain dominant (whereas women lean toward emotion and left brain thinking -> creativity, imaginative synthesis etc).
- Femininity ties closer to emotional desires for contentment/ altruism whereas masculinity is calculative in its nature -> men are thus better able to advance through the corporate requirements top job positions would imply

Note that I said that men tend to have these qualities (which are all rooted in evolutionary psychology/ biology by the way). I once read that most individuals in top managerial positions have been shown to carry similar traits whether they are men OR women, showing that gender is relevant only insofar as it predisposes individuals toward certain traits. But at the end of the day most men are predominantly going to be masculine and most women are going to be feminine.

Social outcomes are driven by biology; discrepancies within society don't inherently imply that sexism is present. IMO, the claim that social outcomes are sexist is discriminatory in itself, particularly when it's followed through with legislation or affirmative action (that is sexist by definition).

Judgement should be based on individual competency/ character, not gender or other discriminatory criteria. But its important to recognize that inherent biology does influence competency/ predisposition to certain roles or abilities.

a) what's your source for this?
b) how is being left brain dominant i.e. being creative, any less a quality suited to a managerial position?

 

[bhsrepresent]

except men actually have more body water than women.

where's your science now?

Lmao what are you on about? Since when did I reply to your post where you mention body water % in men and women?

 

[isildurrrr1]

sexism is wrong. and being wrong is for women.

 

[bhsrepresent]

a) what's your source for this?
b) how is being left brain dominant i.e. being creative, any less a quality suited to a managerial position?

for a moment without questioning the science, how do you yourself define those traits in terms of if they lean more toward masculinity or femininity? I think aggressiveness/ calculative tendency / hierarchical assertion (all ultimately required in a top managerial position imo) are fundamentally masculine traits.

But accounting for characteristic discrepancy between men and women in an evolutionary context, we need to look at the evolutionary demands/ selective processes that have led men and women to their current biological states:

I.e. the example of Hierarchy - male social structure is more hierarchical as we tend to categorize groups in a way that shows clear leadership/ competitive roles - i.e. there's always an alpha of the group, the betas etc (these may sound like abstract and non applicable terms, but think about it in your own personal setting) - the reason behind this is somewhat linked to our egos as well as HOW males seek mates (we do so by distinguishing/ asserting ourselves within social structure). On the contrary though, females tend to be more social and less competitive in their group settings as sexual initiation/ mateship largely corresponds to male assertion (i.e. the 'alpha' female derives her stature by being selected by an 'alpha' male). Evolutionary psychologists account for these differences in male and female social structure by examining the dynamics of the relationship between the genders where males were essentially the providers and females were passive, non-iniative bearers of children (Essentially meaning that males derived sexual value from their capacity to provide and be compatible protectors of children, THUS why we are more competitive and hierarchical by nature)

This is all a very superficial explanation of the rationale behind how evolutionary psychologists account for/ theorise on social and characteristic discrepancies between men and women. I'd invite you to have a read and look into evolutionary psychology yourself (its very interesting and would be much more convincing scientifically than a post on bos ever could)

And in terms of managerial positions, I think we have to distinguish between the creative innovators and the senior managers who have worked their way to managerial success. Managers are there because they've endured for a long time in the same job with a high degree of loyalty, networking, technical skill etc - they aren't there because they're creative people with radical ideas (they may as well could be, but if they were they're more likely to be entrepreneurs). Put it this way, no poet who has gone down in history as a creative 'left brain' revolutionary would survive in the corporate setting; creative people don't have it in their nature to work through a hierarchical system that is monotonous and limiting. Bill gates' creativity has made him an entrepreneur, not someone who has had to work through the corporate ladder and become a senior manager after years of networking (or brown-nosing if you like) and monotony.

 

[Kiraken]

for a moment without questioning the science, how do you yourself define those traits in terms of if they lean more toward masculinity or femininity? I think aggressiveness/ calculative tendency / hierarchical assertion (all ultimately required in a top managerial position imo) are fundamentally masculine traits.

But accounting for characteristic discrepancy between men and women in an evolutionary context, we need to look at the evolutionary demands/ selective processes that have led men and women to their current biological states:

I.e. the example of Hierarchy - male social structure is more hierarchical as we tend to categorize groups in a way that shows clear leadership/ competitive roles - i.e. there's always an alpha of the group, the betas etc (these may sound like abstract and non applicable terms, but think about it in your own personal setting) - the reason behind this is somewhat linked to our egos as well as HOW males seek mates (we do so by distinguishing/ asserting ourselves within social structure). On the contrary though, females tend to be more social and less competitive in their group settings as sexual initiation/ mateship largely corresponds to male assertion (i.e. the 'alpha' female derives her stature by being selected by an 'alpha' male). Evolutionary psychologists account for these differences in male and female social structure by examining the dynamics of the relationship between the genders where males were essentially the providers and females were passive, non-iniative bearers of children (Essentially meaning that males derived sexual value from their capacity to provide and be compatible protectors of children, THUS why we are more competitive and hierarchical by nature)

This is all a very superficial explanation of the rationale behind how evolutionary psychologists account for/ theorise on social and characteristic discrepancies between men and women. I'd invite you to have a read and look into evolutionary psychology yourself (its very interesting and would be much more convincing scientifically than a post on bos ever could)

And in terms of managerial positions, I think we have to distinguish between the creative innovators and the senior managers who have worked their way to managerial success. Managers are there because they've endured for a long time in the same job with a high degree of loyalty, networking, technical skill etc - they aren't there because they're creative people with radical ideas (they may as well could be, but if they were they're more likely to be entrepreneurs). Put it this way, no poet who has gone down in history as a creative 'left brain' revolutionary would survive in the corporate setting; creative people don't have it in their nature to work through a hierarchical system that is monotonous and limiting. Bill gates' creativity has made him an entrepreneur, not someone who has had to work through the corporate ladder and become a senior manager after years of networking (or brown-nosing if you like) and monotony.

i do not think this is true at all, women can be highly competitive in a group setting.

the italicised parts simply sound either like generalisations or with respect to the protector argument, an aspect of society that is fundamentally changing as women increasingly pursue careers etc.

 

[bhsrepresent]

i do not think this is true at all, women can be highly competitive in a group setting.

the italicised parts simply sound either like generalisations or with respect to the protector argument, an aspect of society that is fundamentally changing as women increasingly pursue careers etc.

No though, the idea is that these are psychological traits embedded in our conscious and subconscious - a century of social reform doesn't change anything as we've evolved for billions of years. Even if our society has changed in its structure - male to female interaction has not, women are still attracted to confident aggressiveness that is compatible with a protective role whereas men STILL desire women who are feminine and yielding. And offcourse they are generalisations, they examine how the human psyche works in the majority of cases. How else do we conduct psychology if not in a general sense?

To put it into a contemporary context, think about game theory - it fundamentally revolves around concepts that evolutionary psychologists encounter - the idea that men require confidence/ self assertion in order to pick up a chick can be traced back to how we've come to our current state.

I know that women 'can be' x or men 'can be' y (and I made note of this three times in my previous post), but looking at possibility of something is not how we determine general trends.