Women

(Ouch. No real need for that, Gwaihir.)

Eruve, I agree that this does not prove Nature over Nurture. But it demonstrates clearly that Nurture cannot entirely overcome Nature. And it demonstrates the general differences. And it demonstrates that people should be free to pursue Happiness, in whatever way they best find.

The Feminist zealots who insist it was somehow wrong for you to teach school don't understand that as you do.

I took piano lessons and learned somthing about playing the instrument. I bought a violin and worked at that a while (I gave it to my girlfriend). I never amounted to much musically, though I pretend to sing, because I did not have an aptitude for it. You ever see The Jerk by Steve Martin? That pathetic white boy, trying to keep rhythm with his adoptive black family, is me! I ain't got music.

If I tried very hard, and worked diligently, I could achieve a technically adequate performance of average proficiency for my level. But I had friends who swiftly took to keyboard and strings as if these were simply lost parts of their bodies that they had found again. Soon, they were effortlessly making better music than I, and if they put the sort of effort into it that I had to, they could do astonishing things that I could barely dream of.

I think that we are all endowed with unique aptitudes and even genius on our own individual grounds. If women naturally tend to have certain characteristics and men others to various degrees, then this is not to say that anyone, for reason of gender, should be held back from being what they want to be to the best of their ability and determination.

To whatever extent civilization (Western) still makes that discrimination, it is our right duty to amend it.

So have we at last laid extreme Feminism to her fitful rest?

There are many wonderful things about Women that I'd much prefer to discuss!

Let me leave this particular argument with the words of Scottish poet Robert Burns (1756-1796)

"The Rights of Woman"

While Europe's eye is fix'd on mighty things,
The fate of empires, and the fall of kings;
While quacks of state must each produce his plan,
And even children lisp the Rights of Man;
Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,
The Rights of women merit some attention.

I apologize that my post seems to have caused some confusion.

Gwaihir understood it best. I think men and women are EQUAL, but that their PLACES are different. They are equal people, both worth JUST AS MUCH. But USUALLY their natures are different.

Anduin, I accept that there are men and women who are better at certain things their sex does not usually excell in. Why would I ever hinder them in fulfilling what they have the talents for? I am simply saying that if you look at the world men are USUALLy more suited for certain things and women for other things. Usually! There are exceptions, and these should be appreciated.

Yes, for a long time our government was run by males with no respect for females. This is wrong. But I still believe that FOR THE MOST PART men are better in positions of authority. I do not mean strong as in weight lifter. I mean that men have a power that most women don't have. Women are OFTEN more meak then men. Not always though, there are VERY powerfull women out there.

"And yet men do dominate the world.....I wonder what kind of world we would live in if the nurturing (as we are generally viewed) women dominated the world"
Oh, and "nurturing" women isn't a stereotype?
Yes, it's true, women are better nurturers, that's what I'm saying. If a typical woman ran the government then she would probably have trouble with all the pressure. Men can handle that better in that sort of way. Now, in other ways women are MUCH better handling pressure, I'm not saying they aren't. Just on a smaller scale, men are better in dominant roles. True, this has produced sexist men, but it doesn't have to, and if we had had equality instead of femenism things would be on the road to a good, non-sexist government. Instead, I have to work harder at school then my female peers!

"But I still believe that FOR THE MOST PART men are better in positions of authority"

The question is then where does that belief come from, how was it formed? (You are not alone in thinking that way).
Is it from experience? Then, what experience, since women in authority position are rare in the political arena.
Is this rarity due to their inability to have an authoritarian role, or is it due to the above belief that women can't take on that role!?

In a societies that have so long adopted the mentality that men are superior, only men can be in authority, and that women should stay at home raising children and cooking diner for the "head" of the family, it is thus understandably difficult to make the transition to a more equalitarian society.

Which is why feminists are so hated by some.

It's from my personal experiance. Most (i say most) women who have been in authority positions that I know have made rash desicions, as well as acting in an ilogical manner that is better for some but not for the whole.
This is not my view only as a male, as I know females who agree with me.

Hehe, I guess Gwaihir can't take a dose of his own medicine.

Tater......

I said "nurturing" for the sake of making a point that this is how we are generally view....not that I myself view women as generally nurturing.

Most (i say most) women who have been in authority positions that I know have made rash desicions, as well as acting in an ilogical manner that is better for some but not for the whole.

The exact same thing could be said of men. And since men are mostly in positions of authority, I would say that it is true for men.

Juntel makes a good point.....since the tables haven't turned and more women than men are in positions of authority, there is no real way to know how well they would do. If you say that men are better suited for authority without having anything to compare it to...ie, majority of women in power....then your argument has no substance.

I think that Eruve hit the nail on the head. There really is no arguement that women and men are different, IMO. But don't put us in a "place" that restricts us to that "place" and only that "place". We want as many choices as are available to men. So don't frown on us when we want to climb a tree, take shop class, join the military, run for office, become scientists, etc. What good is a choice, if our choice isn't respected and encouraged as it is for men?

And about PLACES......Whenever you say that it is woman's PLACE to raise children, then it is safe to say that you believe that it's not man's PLACE to raise children....be careful! If that is how the world really was, then you men could forever forget about winning custody of your children. But that is the danger of having PLACES....it sets a boundary, confines you to one area, and leaves you without choice.

The little hobbit, himself having been raised by wolves (a long and uninteresting story), has found that he cannot resist throwing another bit of red meat to the ravening pack...

What if John Adams, 2nd US Pres., had listened to his wife, and not called her bluff? Of course, we now know that she has had the last laugh! :lol:



[c] LETTER TO JOHN ADAMS, MARCH 31, 1776
Abigail (Smith) Adams[/c]
I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors.

Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.

If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to forment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.

Hmmmm... I think it's about that time that the first corset burnings were sighted...

Coincidence?

Which was, not coincidentally, the time of the first "Save the Whales" demonstration, which unfortunately got lost in the footnotes of History.

A counter demonstration, by Boston longshoremen just off a vessel, was equally unremarkable.

anduin, I keep saying there are exceptions. Look at us for instance, I want children, I want to nurture, and you currently don't.
But I'm talking about the majority.

"if our choice isn't respected and encouraged as it is for men"

Live with it. Everyone gets dumped on. Everyone gets treated with a bias. EVERYONE.
If you want to do something, you can do it. It doesn't MATTER if someone doesn't "encourage" you - screw them and do it anyway. If you'd rather whine about not being "encouraged", then you're fitting into the same stereotypes you're trying to shed.

If you have the opportunity, that's great. Don't pretend you're owed anything more - especially not respect. That, you must earn.

"join the military"

This I will deal with.

There are many different things one can do in the military.

If you wish to be a secretary (start with the basics), you'll probably need to have a typing speed of about 2/3rds of mine. Otherwise, forget it.

If you wish to be a mechanic, you'll need... well, a fair bit more mechanical proficiency than I.

If you wish to be a bureaucrat, an accountant, or something to that effect (all under the military, of course), you'll need some financial/logistical skills. Probably some other miscellaneous junk, too.

If you wish to be an engineer (back-end, not combat), you'll probably need a degree and a fair bit of mechanical skill.

If you wish to be a ground-based pilot, you'll need good reflexes (how good depends on what kind of plane you're flying), experience, and a whole whack of other stuff.

If you wish to be a general... good luck to ya.

There are all sorts of other things that you, being a woman, can do in the military with the proper training, some natural ability, and a little bit of willpower.

However, as far as I am concerned, there are some things that you, being a woman, most likely cannot or should not be allowed to do in the military.

Naval work (excluding Marine Corps):

Cannot: I don't think so. Women could most likely make competent naval officers. However...

Should not be allowed to:

I think so. Why? It's fairly simple.

You would be in close quarters with a primarily male crew. (In a submarine, you can't pass in a hallway without physical contact). I believe that the U.S. Navy has already had problems with sexual harassment lawsuits simply because of these close quarters.

In addition, showering, latrine usage, etc., etc. would most likely be complicated by a female presence.

Finally, and this is a recurring problem which should apply in most of the following...

I personally have not had great problems with a life of abstinence. However, aboard a vessel which could be out of port for months at a time, in which sexual activity is prohibited... Let me say that a female presence would be disconcerting for the majority of the crew at the least.

Now, I suppose that there are various workarounds for these problems. However, until those are found and refined to acceptable levels, I'll maintain my position.


"Grunt" work (includes GI, Marine Corps, Special Forces):

Cannot: In most cases, yes.

Stamina, endurance, discipline, strength... Obviously, women _can_ possess these traits - in abundance. Watch the Olympics for proof. HOWEVER...

I would say that the majority of men of legal age do not possess the necessary traits. I would also say that women have a natural disadvantage in body composition.

Furthermore, I have seen a marked disinterest in activities requiring comparable physical activity (loaded movement, etc.), like, for example, football. I've played on several teams, been in tryouts and spring camps with literally hundreds of people.

Guess how many women tried out in all of these tryouts, for all of these teams?

One.

(Note: Incidentally, she was trying out for wide receiver, but ran slower than I did. AFAIC, she had a serious willpower problem)


Should not be allowed to:

Yes.

Basically the same problems as with naval service, and one special little peeve I have.

Up here, the Canadian Army blew MILLIONS of dollars on developing a COMBAT BRA. Our troops are living on MINIMUM WAGE, and the military's blowing its budget on COMBAT BRAS so they can be POLITICALLY CORRECT.

By the way, feel free to propose solutions to these problems I'm bringing up... Preferably ones that don't involve mass penectomies.


And please, before you respond, realize that I have no particular problem with women in general - that's factored into this, anyway - and that I'm speaking from a strictly practical viewpoint. I've also consciously omitted various "borderline" career choices - namely, officer, tanker, naval aviator, and other jobs in which the "problems" that might be caused by a female presence might be balanced by the advantages that a qualified woman could bring to the position.

Also, and finally, for the record, I have no problem with women on football teams if they're willing to run, hit, and work like there's no tomorrow. (Which, for me, there isn't ... but that's another issue altogether)

Women officers don't need to be on a ship or submarine to get sexually harrassed or raped: TailHook.

Look at what you do... leaving my computer two days and look! 30 new messages in that thread alone!

Damn guys, you're addicting me to this board!

Time to buy yourself a portable, Shan!!!
And why not with wireless Internet connection...

Just gimme your credit card number :lol:

(Stupid duplicate posts)

juntel, obviously they can be raped anywhere. However, just as it is advisable for women to avoid dark alleys at night, it is, IMHO, advisable for them to avoid large groups of men who aren't allowed sexual contact for months at a time...

The sexual harassment is a different issue. You might wish to re-read the bit about submarines... maybe even do a little bit of research. Shouldn't take too much effort.

Nature has given hearts to bulls, hoofs to horses, swftness to hares, the power of swimming to fishes, of flying to birds, understanding to men. She had nothing left for women save beauty. Beauty is proof against spears and shields. She who is beautiful is more formidable than fire and iron.

Anacreon
(c. 568-478 B.C.)
Greek lyric poet


I find one thing quite right about this thought and one thing quite wrong.

Wrong
The implication that women do not have understanding.

Right
On the matter of beauty...

...what he said.

JL, so basically since men can not seem to keep their pants on, I should not have the same opportunities as other men? When I graduated from high school in 1987 (hmm, were you even born yet? ) I took the military enterance exam and scored a 98%. Another guy who took the test at the same time, scored the same as me. He was offered many more opportunities than me, even though we scored exactly the same. At the time unfortunately they were not allowing women to fly in the navy or allowing them to be on nuclear subs. He wanted to be on a sub, I wanted to fly. He joined and I did not.

About respect and encouragement. I am not asking for special treatment for women. I am asking for equal treatment for women.

anduin, would you seriously WANT to be on that sub? If i was a woman I know I wouldn't

If you read my post, you would see that I said that I wanted to fly, he wanted to be on the sub.

If I were a women, I know that I wouldn't......"

That is you, and you are not a women. But I am sure that there are women out there thay would want to have the same opportunities as men, and if that means being on a sub, then why should anyone stop them? JL's arguements do not prove that women are incapable of perfoming the same duties as men on a submarine. They do however seem to show that men are not capable of controlling their sexual desires. How sad for them. But men's lack of control shouldn't be an excuse for not letting women into certain areas of the military.

Another close quarter/long term confinement that could be used as an example are space stations. Should only men be allowed to man these stations??