Women

no way! somebody must cook and do the laundry

* sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry...*

Hey there Fatty! I see your back.....

"JL's arguements do not prove that women are incapable of perfoming the same duties as men on a submarine."

How long did it take you to figure that out?

I assume that everyone else was clued in when I said, "Women could most likely make competent naval officers."

"men are not capable of controlling their sexual desires"

Most people are capable of controlling their natural hunger. If they set their mind to it, they can go without food for hours/days/even, in some cases, weeks. However, the longer they defy this hunger, the more tempting it will be.

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

Yes, yes you are.

Quite simply, you're asking people to change their opinions. No matter how "politically incorrect" they may be, you do not have that right.

You are not owed encouragement. You are not owed respect.

Encouragement is, in most cases, verbal. That means it is covered SQUARELY by free speech protection. And free speech also includes the choice NOT to speak.

Respect is mental. And so, if you demand respect, then you demand that someone else change what they think.

"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??"

Well, you already know what my answer is to this question.

You should, anyway.

Astronaut service fits in squarely under "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"

Could there be close-quarters problems? Yes.

Would they be significantly less than those in the trenches? Definitely, for several reasons - namely, fewer people on board = fewer possible offenders. Also a factor is the fact that the astronauts are going to be thoroughly screened and can be sure to face disciplinary action if they pull anything "funny".

As far as the advantages part... you should be able to figure that out for yourself.

Quite simply, you're asking people to change their opinions. No matter how "politically incorrect" they may be, you do not have that right.

Sure I have that right! Just like you have the right to your opinion. And if you believe that I don't have that right, you are more sexist then I originally thought before.

You are not owed encouragement. You are not owed respect.

Are you speaking about me personally, or women in general? Either way, I believe that all worthy people are due encouragement and respect. Maybe you are one of those self important people that believes that no one, regardless of gender, is due either of the two.

I think what anduin means about respect and encouragement is something like "affirmative action", applied here to women.

Of course, this is considering that women isn't a minority group (it's even a majority, more precisely).
Or course, this is ridiculous... Yes, ridiculous that a society has to resort to such measures to dissipate centuries - nay, millenia! - of remorseless discrimination (well, social remorse IS quite recent, compared to millenia) and harsh injustice. Ridiculous then, but necessary: it mirrors the ridiculousness of our society, it's still lingering immaturity (towards both sex and race).

This "affirmative action" for women is just like the affirmative action for blacks: not an unjust advantage given to women, but a real effort to counter-balance a very real discriminatory society that base a lot of its beliefs in sexist ideology (as has been demonstrated by some in this thread).
Were it not for these counter-measures - these "encouragements and respects" in not only words but in action! - then women in society wouldn't be given a real chance to prove themselves, because of sexist discrimination, and they would be left in the lower-level of importance (in general) in our societies: and this would be the usual Catch-22.

(and if it's not what you meant anduin, then let the above accompany and complement your position)

"Quite simply, you're asking people to change their opinions. No matter how "politically incorrect" they may be, you do not have that right."

"Sure I have that right!"

If you honestly believe that, then there's really no point in me being here.

Men, their rights and nothing more;
women, their rights and nothing less.

All members of our societies: same social rights.
Period.

Yeah? Even those not working and not searching a job? "Les B.S.??? Les Squeegies???"

Everyone??? Not sure about that.

Les Squeegies and I guess they are everywhere, have a right to live a transient or even a derelict life. As long as they are not a nuisance, as some often are, troubling public safety and extorting money through menacing actions and countenance.

Why if it weren't for the Mrs, I myself might have chosen to live in just any old hole in the ground and never stayed anywhere long. No worries beyond scrounging a meal, no deadlines, no pressures, doing odd jobs to get by, free medical care at the hospital when I need it, public libraries and parks, fresh air, less care!

Perhaps you've seen the fellows walking the interstate. Bearded men with backpacks, not turning to beg a ride, just going their way and living a simple, uncomplicated life as best they can, following the mind-breaking trauma of the War.

(A nasty, almost useless kind of Adventure that I was thankfully too young and am now too old to participate in, unless those confusticated Yankees come back with their European allies!)

Les Squeegies would like you to believe they are as these Sad Wanderers, sometimes they carry signs that say so, but they are little more than thugs, too cowardly for the commission of greater crimes than panhandling with menace. I do not like them, for when their sort comes into Bienville Square, the Ladies do not gladly stay, and the park loses a great deal of its beauty.

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC BY NOW

They surely have the right to live, but when one look at me and say "Un p'tit peu de change???" I go mad. Why should I give them my hard earned money? They have plenty of occasion to have free food at mission or places. I won't give them money to buy drugs!

What I mean is that, should they have the right to vote?

In our town, they actually have a little activist lobby, demanding fair treatment and a right to sleep under the overpasses near downtown!

This actually brings us back to the idea that some folks SHOULD NOT vote! I jested that Women should be included in that category, and that's how all of this got started!

When this nation started, we did NOT allow Les Squeegies to vote! (Or women either for that matter!)

I think it is obvious that there are people who should be excluded from the great choices in the course of human events. But how do you exclude the panhandlers and include the Wayfarers, who may well cast an excellently informed ballot if they so desired?

I cannot exclude the vapid women who have decided to make Al Gore Leader of the Free World on the basis of a single kiss, without excluding Anduin, Eruve, Dunedain Lady, Arynetrek, Elbreth, etc...

(Sigh)

Perhaps we will survive it all and have a chance to rebuild from the ruins. Or else we might see Kingdom Come!

***
I am reminded of how a civilization ought to be run:

"There is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." --Galatians 3:28

I guess we didn't try hard enough!

You know, Gil, you keep coming back to that kiss thing... I don't know what women you know, or are talking about when you go on about that, but from what I've been reading on other boards, a lot of women were kind of grossed out by it. I don't know myself, I didn't see it. I try to stay away from politics and politicians as much as I can. But that sort of grand-standing is not what is going to form my opinion on a given candidate.

And you're quite right.

But the polls of support among women swung dramatically, and the focus groups went nuts and that was the only thing that had memorable impact. This is was discussed and rehashed and reshown by the pundits and the networks, this was the introduction of most of these gals to Al Gore.

Their husbands and boy friends still overwhelmingly favor George Bush. Both sets reacted within a range you could call lukewarm during Al Gore's list of voter bribes and inducements. But the needles went into the red in the female demographics everytime The Kiss was played and replayed on the newsmedia.

George Bush was on vacation during the Democratic Convention, which, excepting the last night, was a lackluster and even damaging performance, according to the running polls. I can't tell that he has yet returned from vacation.

It's not as if these women were confirmed Bush voters. These were undecideds who had paid no attention to things, but heard other Americans (men) talking about what a complete moron this guy is. But they saw him give a seemingly Presidential sort of address, followed by a passionate kiss returned by his wife, before the entire world. Their hearts melted and they went with their inclinations.

Folk had been wondering all along about the undeniable Gender Gap in the polls.

It's ba-a-a-ack!

Maybe it was because they heard the guys all say he was a moron that did it...

I wouldn't be surprised a bit!

I`ve been away for a while and have just read this thread with interest. Obviously I have not taken part in the debate, so I have no wish to step on anyone`s toes, but I would like to make a couple of brief comments.

As far as intellect is concerned, even taking into account the lack of opportunity for females, there seems to be a disproportionate number of extremely intelligent men. The statistical distribution curve for IQ shows that there is a higher number of men at each end of the scale, both geniuses and retards. However, the average score for each gender is practically identical. Why should this be so? As far as I am aware, no-one has yet posited a convincing reason, but I would like to raise something that two people I have a lot of respect have independently suggested, namely my wife and Mikhail Botvinnik.

I`m sure I mentioned on another thread (on an unrelated subject) that my wife is an exceptionally intelligent woman. She has a measured IQ of 188, holds a double first class honours degree in Modern and Scottish History, a doctorate in Scottish History, and a first class Honours degree in Immunology. She is currently studying for another doctorate in Neuroimmunology. The intellectual `battle of the sexes` has been a running debate during our 11 year marriage.

My wife readily admits, that even while working, she never goes more than a few minutes without thinking of our two children. Her theory is that there is a neurological mechanism at work which acts as a distraction, even in woman who have no offspring. She considers this to be a minor but significant intellectual handicap.

Some months after she first said this, I read an essay by the former world chess champion, Mikhail Botvinnik, in which he proposed the very same theory in response to someone who had asked why men are generally superior to women at chess. He reckoned that the female player would have her concentration frequently broken by such maternal impulses.

I am not sure what to make of this possibility. It sounds plausible rather than definitive to me. I`ll be interested to read your responses.

(BTW, if anyone has raised this issue already, I`m sorry. I just quickly skimmed the previous posts to get up to speed.)

Taimar I don't think anyone has raised that particular difference and the possibilities it in turn raises.

It certainly sounds plausible to me. We know that there are instinctive differences, and these must be hardwired in somehow. I hoping that no one is seriously debating that point any longer.



I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO SAY "I TOLD YOU SO" BUT...

Yesterday's Oprah show featured an interview with Al Gore. Not once, but twice![/b], the show aired The Kiss with predictable near swooning from the (female) studio audience.

I admitted that my previous posts regarding "Oprahfied" women voting for Al Gore on the basis of this convention correography were perhaps a little tart, but I did not take it back. Now this e conjunction has come to pass, demonstrating that I'm not off target at all.

I hit a bullseye. This does not make me happy.

It is not often that my thoughts are born out so speedily or so profoundly, or so precisely, but I think I can now rest this case as well!

***
I think you all know by now that I'm not a chauvenist by any but the most extreme definitions. I maintain, however, my opposition to the extremists that have hijacked our institutions and media and have shaped public opinion contrary to Reality. Men and Women are different, some more so than others.

--Too many women are be inclined to silliness of this sort and will not concern themselves with the vital issues from which men cannot shift their gaze.

--Too many men are inclined to obtuseness about the legitimate concerns that are patently obvious to most women.

But that seems to simply be the Way Things Are. This does not address the individual or his or her rights. It is not a judgement. It is a fact, observed, documented, tested, verified, and proven. But still little understood.

With universal sufferage, voting rights granted indiscriminantly to the entire adult population, these at-large tendencies are predictable and are demonstratable across decades of polls and elections.

That's why in this country, all other things being equal, the average man will vote for Bush, and the average woman for Gore.

But Perot is not a factor this time (so far), Buchanan will get little more than 2%, if that, Nader will take from Gore, and perhaps the Clinton Regime will be ended and we can at last fumigate our capitol.

If the Republicans fail to bring America back to the center, we will fall off the ravine to the Left. If they win, and hold power for more than 20 years, then perhaps you some of you guys can help pull us away from the abyss on the Right.

I maintain, however, my opposition to the extremists that have hijacked our institutions and media and have shaped public opinion contrary to Reality.

Interesting that you mention that, because isn't that what the media has done to you?? You point out that media has has shaped public opinion.....yours included. Her show has convinced you that the people in the audience and those who watch her show are represenative of most women. That is like saying that the average redneck sleeps with his sister because that is what Springer's shows are usually about. I polled several women about the "kiss" and they all looked at me like I was crazy. They were aware of the "kiss" but could not fathom why that would sway a women to vote in favor of Gore. As far as I am concerned, it is men like you that perpetuate the stereotypes of women on the grounds that it is The Way of Things. If that is truely the case, then I might as well give up. I and my children (if we decide to have any) will be forever locked into our "places" (Tater's word, not necessarily Gil's) and will never be able to dig ourselves out, because people will go on thinking that is just The Way Things Are, that's The Way Things Should Be. That doesn't leave any room for growth or change. And it works both sides of the fence. And another thing, so what if the women in Oprah's audience swooned. They are Gore supporters and probably were before the "kiss". That doesn't prove that they were swayed by that "kiss". I am sorry, I just don't buy your theory.

A personal note. I am used to discussing some of these matters with a radio audience acquainted with my views, and with the scope of my daily research (in my heyday) and the length of time I've been seriously and professionally observing events. Unlike most Journalists, I studied History as well as Journalism, so that I would have an idea of how the world got to be the way it was and what happened before I started reporting and commenting on it.

The audience and I are used to one another and I can immediately clear up any wrong impressions I might inadvertantly give. It is difficult to do this on a message board. While this method has it's advantages, it isn't really a dialogue, and so the imperfections of communication are amplified and sentences are parsed and meanings are missent and missinterpreted and the Truth recedes into the fog. And I thought a talk show was hard! We all could have had this entire conversation in an hour on my show and I think we could have done it without hard feelings. (I first realized this on the unlamented ABORTION thread.) So why do I keep doing this? (But don't worry about me. I can quit ANYTIME I like!)

================================================== =========
I need to do a better job of quantifying this so here goes: a rough average of the polls would be a ten point jump for Gore, almost all from women.

These polls count thousands of likely voters, not a handful of friends and aquaintances. And if I may say so, Anduin, I would guess that your friends and aquaintances tend to be of a loftier quality than the millions who stare at Oprah daily.

Let's say for the sake of argument (since I don't know off the top of my head), we have 100 million registered voters. Call it 50 million or more female voters. A 10% jump in likely voters is a lot of women. There are millions more who do not vote at all (include men in that).

Millions of these women in these United States made up their minds overnight.

Many of them directly because of The Kiss.

Anduin, perhaps I expressed myself badly before, but I do not think "most" women are silly. The ballpark guesstimates I just made prove that. But millions are.

These women, as I indicated, were inclined to support Al Gore. They voted for William Jefferson Blythe Clinton twice. But they were long unsure of Al Gore because of Slick Willy. They needed a reason to go with their inclinations.

This is not an opinion or a theory or a stereotype. This is the disgusting way that retail politics is calculated. Give truth serum to a trial lawyer and ask why they pick these women for their juries. (Give truth serum to a politician and it will die! :lol: )

The running polls through the Democratic Convention started low and trended down. When Al Gore gave his speech, reactions were generally favorable with the focus groups. When he gave Tipper The Kiss, it was off the charts.

The highlight of the convention that to this date has received the most airplay in the media has been The Kiss. The polling change was almost entirely women. We know when they made up their minds and that tells us why.

My last post was about the ultimate confirmation of my point as my very words were born out. Of course Oprah had an audience of Gore supporters. They looked exactly like the audience she has everyday. Very much like the bigger audience at home that they are shooting for. That's why they do it that way.

The reason Oprah wants that audience, and not your circle of friends, who may vote for Gore for reasons of well-informed principle, is because all ratings count the same and they are aiming for the biggest audience they can get. That's why defense lawyers pick women and that's why Gore's lackeys conceived The Kiss. (That last part is supposition on my part based on my masculine intuition. There is a slight chance that it was unplanned. Clearly Tipper didn't know it was coming. But it was her genuine response that made it work!)

I don't believe in perpetuating stereotypes. But I can't ignore millions women who insist on living it.

I am not myself a chauvenist, a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe, or any of the other negative stereotypes that have been applied to me through the years for my insistence on Reality over Political Correctness. But I honestly cannot deny that bigots & co. exist in Conservatism in significant enough numbers so that the stereotypes have a basis. They started somewhere, just like all stereotypes.

These women exist, and there are a lot of them. That's why there is a stereotype. It is wrong to apply stereotypes to people in thought or to treat them so in deed. But that doesn't negate the reality that the stereotype is based upon.

Historically, men have used stereotypes, traditions, rules, laws, and brute force to repress women. The fact that Clinton was elected twice and perhaps Al Gore shall be is evidence that such times are passing, and have greatly passed in our corner of civilization. As with racism, great progress has been made, but there is still a road to travel. We won't make much progress, if through the ineptitude of the Socialists, freedom and prosperity is lost and squandered.

And those silly women aren't helping right now!