Sexual equality my ass

[Candyvan Stan]

The physical requirements are there for a reason: they best prepare the police/firemen/soldiers for the physical requirements of the situations they're put in. Lowering those requirements for anyone will DRASTICALLY reduce the capabilities of any of those people in any situation, and that just cant be risked in that line of work.


It happens though, obviously. Because otherwise there wouldn't be female cops, except for maybe semi-professional athletes. Which would look 'sexist'. Therefore, they're far more lenient on women than on men. Now one can argue, is that not sexist?

It is a difficult position the corps and government are in.

[Kaji]

I stand by the same thing I said about women in the military earlier: Once you start sacrificing efficiency and effectiveness in these kinds of jobs for nominal equality and political correctness, unnecessary human sacrifices start being made.

If they aren't capable of the job, they shouldn't do it.

[Decade]

^QFT

Candyvan,

Also QFT, but we both know it shouldnt be that way. If there are less female cops/firemen/soldiers because of these physical requirements, then so be it. The ones that pass are the ones that should.

These positions should never be about having equal members of each sex, it should be about having the best people capable of duty.

[Candyvan Stan]

Damn.

I'm actually not sure what to think MYSELF. On the one hand, a job as important to society as the police should not be populated entirely by men, as it'd be a huge hurdle for feminism. On the other hand, I agree with you guys. The women and girls in the academy are very kickass and I like them all a lot, however, all of them (no exceptions in my class, sorry) are far behind us guys (except for one with asthma) in physical training.

So I'm debating this with myself. I still lean towards leniency towards women being fair, but I do think by 40 seconds is a bit excessive. I would like to hear Roxie's opinion on this.

[Kaji]

Another approach that can balance things is finding roles for those who can't pass physical muster where such conditioning doesn't matter. Just because you don't have the upper body strength to carry a 200 pound man out of a burning building doesn't mean you can't conduct forensic research to find out why the building was burning in the first place, no?

[Candyvan Stan]

It's not how the police here works. Most detectives start uniformed. In fact, even our uniformed cops do detective work. It's not at all like the United States. Our police is pretty much the FBI, normal police and everything in between all in one.

And then there's the Dutch secret service, which is one of the most effective in the world.

[Decade]

Candyvan,

There are positions in law that dont require as much physical requirements as Kaji said. If thats the way it works in the Netherlands, then we both know it's obviously flawed.

This is the problem with having women in a lot of fields today (having girls on boys sports teams in school, having women firefighters and policemen), ONLY because they're women.

What it comes down to is this:

Each of these things are supposed to go to the best candidates, or to those who meet the requirements in order to join.

However, lets take girls on sports teams for example, where girls are fighting to be on boys high school sports team because they say girls should be able to play too, or women being made firemen or policemen because they're women.

It's not supposed to go that way because that's sexist.

Why should it be that because I cant meet the requirements (or sometimes, when I can) I have to miss a position because I have a penis?

Why should I get a position over a woman, even if Im a WORSE candidate, just because I have a penis?

Women shouldn't be allowed to join anything just because they're women, a woman should be able to join if and what they meet requirements, or, even better, if they're actually the best candidate. Just because they have a vagina doesn't entitle them to anything, and I'm sure most true feminists would agree with this. There's no special privileges, just the privileges any other human being should get.

IN THE CASE OF Girls on boys sports teams:

Do you know why we have boys and girls sports teams? It's actually quite simple:

Imagine every school only has one sports team for one sex (this shouldnt be hard to imagine at all, think American Football).

A girl wants to be on the team: Ok, let her try out for it (there is nothing wrong in a girl trying out for a team she wants to join), and is placed in the running with all other candidates (lets say for this example, all boys). One of two results occur:

1) The girl is ranked as having good enough stats to join the team and one boy who has worse stats is not able to make the team. This works.

Why?

It's VERY simple, she is a better candidate then the boy. This is NO different than when a boy tries out and is better than another boy. Therefore, because shes a better candidate, she should be able to join the team because she would be the better asset this year.

OR

2) The girl has worse stats than other candidates, who happen to be all boys, and then shouldn't be on the team because the other candidates would give the team the best chance to win. As such, there are no girls on the team, and this is totally fine because the girl was not the best candidate.


So, lets take "boy sports" (which is a term I dont like using because its sexist in itself), as we call them, and examine the general view on this matter.

There are girls who try out for these teams and are simply not as good candidates as other boys who tried out, and therefore dont make the team. But the girls still want to play! Well, what if we make a separate team just for girls then so that girls get to play, even if they didnt meet the requirement for the "main" team for boys. So they do this and seperate the sexes in order to give each sex a "fair" chance.


This doesnt work either because this implies girls in general are inferior to boys in the same sports (REGARDLESS of what general stats are between boys and girls in these sports), and then girls say they want to be in "boys" sports because they have the right to try out and be on the team, and we have what we have now.


WHAT IT COULD BE:

If each school really wants to have two teams per sport, instead of dividing it out by gender, and then by varsity and junior varsity, why not just have varsity and junior varsity for a sport and one team for each?

The boys and girls who are the best candidates for varsity make varsity, and the next best candidates make junior varsity. This way, any boys and girls who are the best candidates get placed where they truly belong.


WHY THIS COULDN'T WORK
Because then varsity would be the new "boys/girls" team because, unfortunately, because boys/girls usually have better physical stats than boys/girls in high school teams and any boy/girl on junior varsity with boys/girls would get shit for being on the "girly/boyish junior varsity team."


So what does that leave us with? Boys teams and girls teams. And we all go back in a circle trying to solve the problem.

So what does it come down to?

Let girls try out, if they meet the requirements or beat out other men for a spot, let them on. If they dont, they dont.

Let boys try out for girl sports or for generally female positions. If they meet the requirements or beat out other girls for a spot, let them on. If they dont, they dont.

BTW, Im SURE this was covered in this thread before, and there was actually a link somewhere in this thread about boys trying out for a girls basketball team.

But, this all falls apart because then we get back to "why are there no boys/girls on this team?" problem in many cases, and then there are boys/girls who complain they want to play the sport but they cant compete with the boys/girls, and then we seperate into boys and girls teams again and then the cycle continues.

And that, right there, is the clusterfuck shitacular cycle of boys and girls sports, and how it then leads into society with policemen, firemen, and soldiers in the army.


Its taken from one aspect of life to the other. :duh:

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

You're basically saying that by lowering the physical requirements for women to, say, get into the police force or military will result in an individual who will not be able to adequately be able to serve, protect, whatever.

Can you prove this, other than with speculation? And I don't mean in a case such as passing whatever-the-hell obstacle course in 4 minutes instead of 3:20, but in general. Until you can, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that those setting the standards (Which aren't some godly law in the first place) know what they're doing more than you do.

And no, they are not getting lowered requirements just because they have a vagina and you have a penis. That is incredibly simplistic and makes me wonder just how well you know the physiological differences between men and women.

[Decade]

Prove it?

I'll let you see it for yourself. You can actually take the time and research as to why the requirements to pass that "whatever-the-hell obstacle course" in whatever amount of time is and see as to why it's actually important.

Or even better, why a fireman would need to be able to carry a weight minimum to be able to be a fireman.

And those setting the standards knowing what they're doing more than I do? Sure they do, in the case of the standards for men. For women with the lower standards, they dont, because in a fight for sexual equality, thats simply not. If it doesnt have to be as high for a woman to do it, it doesnt need to be as high for a man to do it. If it has to be so high for a man to do it, it SHOULD be as high for a woman to do it.

Why should a man have to do it in 3:20 if a woman only has to do it in 4? If its for the same position, that makes no sense. There needs to be one requirement between both sexes. Whether this lowers the requirements and leaves these people less capable in their abilities to serve, or raise the requirements and give you less people capable to serve is your venom of choice to drink.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

So, in other words, you can't.

With your firefighter example, could you show me a place where firefighting standards for women are lower? I just pulled up a PDF on standards in Frederick County, MD and they don't lower for women.

Also, in response to your fit about car insurance and why as a man you might have to pay more: Insurance corporations are a business and will go by whatever they can to save money and make money, and statistics are a wonderful thing to go by. Complaining about insurance and statistics is just funny.

[xtine]

I'm sure most logical people would agree that a girl should make a sport if they meet the physical and skill conditions. However, many girls that ARE physically fit and skilled for the sport are either pressured from joining or sexually harassed once they were on the team.

There was a case a while ago where a female was allowed into a college football team, but eventually left or something due to excessive sexual harassment.

Even if women CAN fit the job, society and sexual pressure either eeks them out or prevents them from doing so. The progression of social thought norm change for women just to be accepted into traditionally thought male only roles, is what I think rational "feminists" root for.

I can keep going on about this subject with a lot more material since I have some personal experience since I am in a vast minority role in school and industry (female in computer science).

[Decade]

So, in other words, you can't.
No, I wont. Because if you really wanted to know, you could google it.

With your firefighter example, could you show me a place where firefighting standards for women are lower?
No, I cant, because I never said they were, but I know that there have been cases that have come up where women have wanted them lowered (http://www.wfsi.org/resources/archive/article_archive.php?article=16).

But, there are women who can pass the test (http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=370974), so it makes the argument mute.

And since you're in such a mood for other literature as to why they cant be lowered, have (http://www.jessejacksonjr.org/query/creadpr.cgi?id=5169) at it (http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/12/05/firehouse/view/?order=asc).

I'm sure most logical people would agree that a girl should make a sport if they meet the physical and skill conditions. However, many girls that ARE physically fit and skilled for the sport are either pressured from joining or sexually harassed once they were on the team.

I agree, and obviously something needs to be done about this as we can see that in a link I put, harassment occured to female firefighters who passed the test as well.


EDIT:

#$#^# My links messed up for wanting the physical test lowered, let me find the link again.

EDIT 2:

Heres one, without hyper linking to see if it works:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/648654/posts

One where the physical test was modified to allow more women in.

http://www.womenof.com/News/wm_5_5_03.asp

^It should be noted that in the first link there are some people who believe the test has never been altered for women in the NYFD, but obviously thats not true as shown here.

[Decade]

Let me say now that I cant find the specific story I remember of women wanting to lower the physical standards. I do NOT believe the links I provided are adequeat enough for my argument. Ill keep looking, but for now at least, heres a report (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/tr_97am.pdf) on physical requirements from a fire rescue services rep and other links I found

http://www.wfsi.org/resources/bibliography.php

[Roxie]

That's racist. And sexist. Making excuses for it doesn't make it any better.
Way to dismiss and simplify complicated concerns there. Those aren't excuses, they're reasons. I don't have a problem with man calling himself a feminist, but I suggest you look further into these reasonings, b/c it's not simple nor easy and I can't really explain it better.

Does anyone know for sure that woman couldn't pass the same standards as a man? All I know is the standards are "lowered", but have they tried testing the women at the same level?

[Decade]

Yes, there are women who can pass the same standards as men.
But, there are women who can pass the test (http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=370974), so it makes the argument mute.
That might be the one link that actually worked for me in that word vomit post :gloomy:

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

No, I wont. Because if you really wanted to know, you could google it.

Then you're losing the argument. Of course I could Google if I wanted to. However, you made the claim, you back it up.

As for everything else, you misunderstand why I brought the firefighter thing up. You are arguing against lowering physical standards for women, and mentioned about why some standards shouldn't be lowered. Later you said:

Or even better, why a fireman would need to be able to carry a weight minimum to be able to be a fireman.
I told you to give me examples as to where firefighter physical requirements had been lowered, otherwise this sentence would be moot. You just linked to the very PDF I mentioned about standards not being lowered for a county in Maryland.

One where the physical test was modified to allow more women in.

http://www.womenof.com/News/wm_5_5_03.asp

So? Did you even read the article? From what I can tell it only mentions altering the standards as to be more fair and to focus on physical activities actually pertaining to the jobs, a perfectly acceptable standard was was passed by 44 women. This is completely different from altering the requirements just to allow more women in, as you misinterpret it. What if I were to tell you this story, but only told you about the part that it was only altered to focus on job-related activities? I bet you'd be perfectly fine with it.

With that said, it seems like a biased site, but I'm working with what you gave me.

[Decade]

I told you to give me examples as to where firefighter physical requirements had been lowered, otherwise this sentence would be moot. You just linked to the very PDF I mentioned about standards not being lowered for a county in Maryland.

One where the physical test was modified to allow more women in.

http://www.womenof.com/News/wm_5_5_03.asp

The requirements were lowered. And, yes, they said in order to make it more relevant to the work, but any mention of making these changes for the men also is all but present, however.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Women should not be in the military, because if there is a widescale conflict and the women get killed, the resulting population decrease will be far harder to replenish.

Women should only be allowed on men's teams if the men are allowed on the women's teams if they can meet the requirements.

In other words, we should keep them separate or else we will have fewer women in sport period.

[Jetsetlemming]

Way to dismiss and simplify complicated concerns there. Those aren't excuses, they're reasons. I don't have a problem with man calling himself a feminist, but I suggest you look further into these reasonings, b/c it's not simple nor easy and I can't really explain it better.

If someone believes all white people feel the benefit of being white and can't understand racism and thus can't join a group focusing on blacks, they are racist. No ifs, ands, or buts. I personally, as someone who's lived most his life as a minority in the inner city and faced a whole hell of a lot of racism for being white and jew looking, find that statement INCREDIBLY offensive.
Likewise, if someone believes all men have felt the benefit of being a man over a woman and have prospered somehow from sexism, and wouldn't understand the concept of sexism to fight it, they are indeed sexist, no ifs, ands, or buts.
There is absolutely NO excuse for that kind of bullshit.

[Candyvan Stan]

Can you prove this, other than with speculation? And I don't mean in a case such as passing whatever-the-hell obstacle course in 4 minutes instead of 3:20, but in general. Until you can, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that those setting the standards (Which aren't some godly law in the first place) know what they're doing more than you do.



http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,137044,00.html

You mean like this?

Apparently, it doesn't just happen in the Netherlands. And in the Netherlands it doesn't just happen for police. The regular units of the navy, firefighters, army, air force all employ lower physical standards for women.

HOWEVER.

The elite units of each do not. The Dutch marine corps, commandos, special operations, SWAT and the like all have the same very high physical requirements for anyone wishing to join up. The result is that there are no female marines, an extremely small amount of female SWAT - I have no data over the other elite units, however - it's fair to assume there aren't many women there, either.

[Kaji]

Personally, I find it hard to justify coed contact sports due to how quickly this country paints men as rapists waiting for an opportunity (c.f. Duke Lacrosse). Can you really say people are playing their best when the guys are afraid to try to tackle a girl for fear that they might be accused of groping her in the process? Even if the girls are fully qualified, it doesn't change the psychological aspect (which further, is largely one that women have ingrained in men in the first place).

[Trump]

I completely agree with having separate men's and women's sports teams in contact sports. In high school, every time a girl got tackled I bet she would be groped by 5 different people. Come on, we are talking high school and we are talking jocks. I know this is sterotypical, but sterotypes don't create themselves. I know there are exceptions but exceptions aren't the norm.

Furthermore, if you allowed boys on the girls team you'd just end up with a second boys team. They already have varsity and junior varsity sports at almost every high school and fill both up with guys. So to allow women to compete at all they need a separate women's only team.

For non contact sports I think they should allow coed. But because of the gender gap they do need to make sure they have a minimum number of girls and to keep separate rankings for coed and girls. Otherwise what is the point?

Just look at golf. Women are shorter and so cannot get as much power behind their swing. That is a fact. The best woman golfer (to some) tried her hand at the PGA and didn't even make the cut to move on to the weekend play. So allowing an arena for women to compete is important, but it should not limit them from competing at a higher level.

You cannot allow men to play on a women's team. That would be like letting a 5th grader compete in a 3rd grade spelling contest. The 3rd grader should be allowed to compete at the 5th grade level, but you can obviously see the problem going the other way.

Is any of this sexist? Not at all, it is just being realistic. Sexism is denying the opportunity based on sex. All I have mentioned is making sure people have a chance to participate and be recognized.

[Decade]

Personally, I find it hard to justify coed contact sports due to how quickly this country paints men as rapists waiting for an opportunity (c.f. Duke Lacrosse). Can you really say people are playing their best when the guys are afraid to try to tackle a girl for fear that they might be accused of groping her in the process? Even if the girls are fully qualified, it doesn't change the psychological aspect (which further, is largely one that women have ingrained in men in the first place).
Ah, but then we become sexist for thinking that way.

In other words, we cant win :boggled:

I completely agree with having separate men's and women's sports teams in contact sports. In high school, every time a girl got tackled I bet she would be groped by 5 different people. Come on, we are talking high school and we are talking jocks. I know this is sterotypical, but sterotypes don't create themselves. I know there are exceptions but exceptions aren't the norm.
I think this was a decent point that got jumbled up a bit, let me try to re-express it:

Dont look at it as stereotypical jocks, look at it as the actual sport.

Whether guys will admit it or not, things get touched in contact sports. In wrestling, guys get touched in someway at their chests, asses, or pelvic areas. In football, players will grab whatever they can to take the opponent down. And we go on and on.

I think the problem you're trying to address isnt "stereotypical jocks" groping women, its normal contact that happens in sports that girls will call "groping and sexual harassment," which, unfortunately, we know will happen. What girls will have to understand is they give up their rights not to be touched by being allowed to play on a boys team.


I remember a story similar to this in the army, I think I might have mentioned it in one of the first pages of this thread:

In a womens studies class I took, the professor talked about how a girl she knew had to leave the army because she was complaining about sexual harassment when all she wanted was to be treated equally to any guy in the military.

The sexual harassment occured from her unit, who were all very close (and mostly men). They would all joke around and slap each other on the ass jokingly. However, she took it as sexual harassment when they started joking around and slapping her on the ass too.

Now, we can debate the right to touch any other person, but from what it sounds like they were treating her equally as any other guy in the group as she fully admitted herself they would do it to each other as well, so can we really say its sexual harassment and not equal treatment amongst her peers?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,137044,00.html

You mean like this?

Apparently, it doesn't just happen in the Netherlands. And in the Netherlands it doesn't just happen for police. The regular units of the navy, firefighters, army, air force all employ lower physical standards for women.

HOWEVER.

The elite units of each do not. The Dutch marine corps, commandos, special operations, SWAT and the like all have the same very high physical requirements for anyone wishing to join up. The result is that there are no female marines, an extremely small amount of female SWAT - I have no data over the other elite units, however - it's fair to assume there aren't many women there, either.

No, I don't mean like that. I already know about the difference in physical requirements for the USMC fitness test. I'm not asking for that-- I'm asking for you to prove that lowering physical standards for women will be detrimental. In other words, that you'll wind up with soldiers, police officers, etc., that are not actually capable of doing adequately what their job commands of them. Just lowering standards for women does not mean this.

[Jetsetlemming]

No, I don't mean like that. I already know about the difference in physical requirements for the USMC fitness test. I'm not asking for that-- I'm asking for you to prove that lowering physical standards for women will be detrimental. In other words, that you'll wind up with soldiers, police officers, etc., that are not actually capable of doing adequately what their job commands of them. Just lowering standards for women does not mean this.
I'd imagine the preset standards were set at whatever level they were before being lowered for women were there for a reason. Now, this is just a hunch, but I don't think they pull those numbers out of their ass completely.

[Roxie]

If someone believes all white people feel the benefit of being white and can't understand racism and thus can't join a group focusing on blacks, they are racist. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Wow, that's not what I said.

[Decade]

They were concerned that the white students, used to the culture privelege their skin entitled them to, would not take them seriously, try to run things, and be dismissive of their issues. This is probably the same ideal at work here.

In all fairness, it looks like thats what you were trying to say.

[Roxie]

That's not the same thing as saying "you're white/male, therefore, automatically you can't understand our issues! So you can't join!"

No, the issue was that being white/male, there is an amount of cultural privileges and entitlements that one is used to. Some were/are afraid those would get in the way. But like I said, SNCC did allow white students and there are plenty of women who don't mind if men call themselves feminist.

[Kaji]

Even then, you're being racist for making that tiny assumption you stated in your post, even if it's not the same one that Lemming was getting at. Further, as he pointed out, not everyone who is white/male/etc. experiences the "privilege" you describe. A son of an ultra-feminist mother sure isn't (especially if she has any daughters). Lemming also pointed out where he was in the minority, in spite of being white, and thus was on the receiving end of a lost of crap from the black people around him.

The joy of liberal politics: by trying to regulate social issues from the top (read: as they can be viewed from the perspective of the federal government), you lose sight of the fine details and just deal with overall trends, even if in some localities the national trend is completely off.

[Roxie]

Even then, you're being racist for making that tiny assumption you stated in your post, even if it's not the same one that Lemming was getting at. Further, as he pointed out, not everyone who is white/male/etc. experiences the "privilege" you describe. First, I am not being racist. It's not an assumption, it's a concern. What I mean is they didn't assume JUST BECAUSE--there's actual experience behind it--and like I said SNCC did allow white students, and there are plenty of feminist women who don't have a problem with men calling themselves the same.

A son of an ultra-feminist mother sure isn't (especially if she has any daughters).
What?

Lemming also pointed out where he was in the minority, in spite of being white, and thus was on the receiving end of a lost of crap from the black people around him.
Lemming is one person. He's experienced racism from minorities but that doesn't exempt him from privelege to be experienced in the larger culture.

The joy of liberal politics: by trying to regulate social issues from the top (read: as they can be viewed from the perspective of the federal government), you lose sight of the fine details and just deal with overall trends, even if in some localities the national trend is completely off.
That's b/c the issue is with overall trends. Focusing on only localities that are the exception are not going to get you anywhere.

[Kaji]

So in short, every state needs exactly the same thing? Alaska needs the same as California as Kansas as Virginia as Georgia? In all ways? Nobody is more aware of a situation than those living in it; likewise the federal government is about as removed from it as you can get without being foreign. It should be the responsibility of the states to ensure that their people are taken care of, the purpose of the federal government (as it was originally intended) was solely to handle matters that involved multiple states (c.f. the much-abused inter-state commerce clause).

[Roxie]

....


This has been another "wtf?" moment, brought you by Kaji.

[Jetsetlemming]

Lemming is one person. He's experienced racism from minorities but that doesn't exempt him from privelege to be experienced in the larger culture.

I'd love for you to point out how and where I've gotten any privilege from the "larger culture". Really. I've been in the bottom economic rung my whole life, beaten up and ostracized by all the other kids for most of my school career, and am currently unemployed with no prospects of college for at least a year, and when that comes, my only chances for scholarships will be by displaying myself out as a native american and applying for race grants and trying to get in under affirmative action.
I'm really not seeing these fucking privileges.

[Roxie]

Of course you don't. You don't see it, b/c it's automatic for you. These privileges don't equate "omg awesome life!", but if you're on the outside, you'll notice.

Here (http://whiteprivilege.com/definition/)are some (http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html)things on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege_(sociology))white privelege (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whiteprivilege.htm).

[Jetsetlemming]

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/571/whiteposteryq7.jpg

[Roxie]

wow, so you're really invested in it huh?

[clapyrhandsifyouwantsome]

I'd love for you to point out how and where I've gotten any privilege from the "larger culture". Really. I've been in the bottom economic rung my whole life, beaten up and ostracized by all the other kids for most of my school career, and am currently unemployed with no prospects of college for at least a year, and when that comes, my only chances for scholarships will be by displaying myself out as a native american and applying for race grants and trying to get in under affirmative action.
I'm really not seeing these fucking privileges.

hold up, dude
i'd just like to point out: if you have the internet, then i think it's pretty safe to say that you also have a computer and a home to put it in, which puts you decidedly ABOVE the lowest economic rung, son.

[clapyrhandsifyouwantsome]

If someone believes all white people feel the benefit of being white and can't understand racism and thus can't join a group focusing on blacks, they are racist. No ifs, ands, or buts. I personally, as someone who's lived most his life as a minority in the inner city and faced a whole hell of a lot of racism for being white and jew looking, find that statement INCREDIBLY offensive.
Likewise, if someone believes all men have felt the benefit of being a man over a woman and have prospered somehow from sexism, and wouldn't understand the concept of sexism to fight it, they are indeed sexist, no ifs, ands, or buts.
There is absolutely NO excuse for that kind of bullshit.

Lemming also pointed out where he was in the minority, in spite of being white, and thus was on the receiving end of a lost of crap from the black people around him.

i can't help but find kaji's racial assumptions REALLY INTERESTING here. DDH said he lived in an inner city, with no mention of specific race (other than his own), and yet kaji assumes that it was black people who caused him so much suffering. this may or may not be true, but i think that his automatic imagining and assumption that it was to be quite... fascinating.

just to clear things up, since maybe you don't know (that's the most positive way i can imagine things in this situation) - an inner city area can include many different ethnicities and races. they can include (but are not limited to): latino/latina, aboriginal, caucasian...

[Jetsetlemming]

I certainly wasn't facing any difficulties from the local Aborigines. Nice straw man. His assumption is due to the context of the discussion, not that specific line.
Also, while homeless is pretty much the bottom of the barrel, the bottom rung as far as the government is concerned when it classifies poverty is a bit wider. I have a home... for the present.

[Decade]

Ah crap, wtf happened here?


Lets not change this from sexual inequality to racial inequality. Take that argument to another thread or pm, please.

[Exeter]

No, I don't mean like that. I already know about the difference in physical requirements for the USMC fitness test. I'm not asking for that-- I'm asking for you to prove that lowering physical standards for women will be detrimental. In other words, that you'll wind up with soldiers, police officers, etc., that are not actually capable of doing adequately what their job commands of them. Just lowering standards for women does not mean this.

It means there are either less capable female soldiers, police officers, etc. due to the lowered requirements, or, if they're just as capable of doing the job regardless, it means that men are being held to too high a standard since apparently the physical requirements aren't indicative of job performance, and those standards should be lowered to the same level for both genders.

It's like affirmative action. The intention was to promote diversity, but I for one would have a hard time respecting coworkers who got hired over other candidates only because of their ethnicities/genders/what have you. It's still bias.

I agree with Doc Doggie Head. You certainly don't see any college scholarships specifically for whites or males, because that would be racist and sexist. :duh:

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I'd imagine the preset standards were set at whatever level they were before being lowered for women were there for a reason. Now, this is just a hunch, but I don't think they pull those numbers out of their ass completely.
No, they probably don't, and there's also the chance that they put some thought into their requirements for women (If they lower them) to make it more fair but still ensure that if a woman passes, even with the lowered standards, they can still do their job satisfactorily.

[Decade]

Youre assuming the standards, as is, are not already the bare minimum, or even better, the safety standards needed.

If you cant prove they're not already either, you got nothing go on yourself.

[Roxie]

Ah crap, wtf happened here?


Lets not change this from sexual inequality to racial inequality. Take that argument to another thread or pm, please.
Ok. I'll agree, if everyone else does.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Youre assuming the standards, as is, are not already the bare minimum, or even better, the safety standards needed.

If you cant prove they're not already either, you got nothing go on yourself.
On the one hand, I don't like to admit a draw, but that's true, I can't prove that they're not already the bare minimum. However you can't prove your idea that the lowered standards for women are detrimental. You have nothing to go on either.

And, well, to be an immature two year old, you started it.

[Decade]

Wanna hug it out?

[clapyrhandsifyouwantsome]

I certainly wasn't facing any difficulties from the local Aborigines. Nice straw man. His assumption is due to the context of the discussion, not that specific line.
Also, while homeless is pretty much the bottom of the barrel, the bottom rung as far as the government is concerned when it classifies poverty is a bit wider. I have a home... for the present.

hilarious, is this going to be a contest of who can shout "straw man" quickest, now?
my argument wasn't a straw man, though. not if you've been paying attention. one of the key elements in this discussion has been privilege, and how it effects a person's perspective in addition to the effecting what that person does or does not see/notice, whether that be due to experience, lack of exposure or a million other things that may or may not be that person's fault. all i wanted was for you to do was acknowledge that you are not on the street; i never said that you were not struggling. but the fact of the matter is that you DO have some privileges over other people, and i think that it is important to recognize that.
here, i'll go first:
i, as a caucasian female with a university education have a much greater ability to obtain a working position in which i am comfortable, paid adequately, and not harassed (NB: i said 'greater ability,' not that i am guaranteed to get all these things). now you try.

[Decade]

You two need to hug it out the most.

Come on now, open arms and no below the waist funny shit.

[Exeter]

i, as a caucasian female with a university education have a much greater ability to obtain a working position in which i am comfortable, paid adequately, and not harassed (NB: i said 'greater ability,' not that i am guaranteed to get all these things). now you try.

Having a degree isn't a privilege, it is an achievement. You may have enjoyed privileges that helped you to get there in the first place, but anyone can graduate from a university.

[Overkongen]

I was in the army back in the day, and the government being to PC-morons that they are, decided to lower the standards for any girlies who wanted in. My group was fortunate enough to not get a girl member, but I remember this here other group. They were quite well-known, for yelling at her, because she was ALWAYS slowing them down. Sometimes her legs hurt, sometimes we were asked to move out wearing our full backpack, which she could barely lift.

While it was funny to watch, I know how the guys in her group must have felt, and if I was asked to go to war with her as my sidekick, I'd be like "Please, can't you just throw me in a cell instead?"

The entire company developed an attitude towards women in the army. We thought they were useless. I think that might have turned out differently if we'd asked the ladies to live up to the same requirements as the blokes.

[Overkongen]

...but anyone can graduate from a university.


Quoted for truth

[Trump]

No, I don't mean like that. I already know about the difference in physical requirements for the USMC fitness test. I'm not asking for that-- I'm asking for you to prove that lowering physical standards for women will be detrimental. In other words, that you'll wind up with soldiers, police officers, etc., that are not actually capable of doing adequately what their job commands of them. Just lowering standards for women does not mean this.

You know, you asked the totally wrong question. Do you really understand the issue? The correct question is 'Would lowering physical standards for men to match the standards for women be detrimental. etc...'

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Yes, I do understand the issue. My question of asking if just lowering the standards for women would be detrimental was just fine, since that's what we're concentrating on. You question is just spin-off of that and, like was just discussed, can't be proven right now.

[Roxie]

Punishment by feminization (http://feministing.com/archives/007599.html#comments)


Because there's nothing worse than being "girly," a South Carolina prison has taken to punishing sexually active inmates (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6867031,00.html)by dressing them in pink.

Of course, the prison punishment isn't the first to use feminization as a deterrent against "bad" behavior: Thai police officers who act up are forced to wear a pink Hello Kitty armband (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/world/asia/07cnd-thai.html)and let's not forget about our Man Can friends (http://feministing.com/archives/007571.html). But this punishment being tied up with sexual behavior strikes me as particularly fucked.

State Corrections Department John Ozmint said the two-year-old punishment deters inmates and protects female officers.

..."We don't believe the United States Constitution protects an inmate's right to publicly gratify himself,'' Ozmint said.


Uh yeah. How exactly is a pink prison jumpsuit going to protect women? But more to the point, feminization as a form of punishment is sexist and foul. Rant over, back to playing with the puppy (http://feministing.com/monty.jpg).

[xtine]

The earlier article from the Guardian about the pink prison practice: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1892555,00.html

I read in some psychology journal that pink is a soothing color and studies have shown that it tones down aggression. I don't know if it's this case or not, I've also read somewhere that a prison with pink prison walls had fewer reports of inmate violence.

[Roxie]

No, that's not the case with this one. They're using it specifically as punishment, check the link. Things like this greatly disturb me.

[Trump]

Who Are you saying sexist or the prison guards or the inmates? Are you offended by this? After maybe half a second of thought I move on to other more interesting topics.

[Roxie]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Jetsetlemming]

Basically: Who the fuck cares? It's pink jumpsuits. Wearing pink makes guys feel uncomfortable and unmanly, just like a lot of women would feel uncomfortable in clothing and dress styles typically considered manly. It's hardly "feminization" or "sexist", for christ's sake. Feminization isn't even a real word. Punishing inmates for jerking off is a whole nother issue, but getting offended over the pink jumpsuits is just fucking retarded.

[Roxie]

Wow. You're so wrong it's not even funny..Also YOU do not get to decide what someone else finds offensive. This is not singular incident.

[Injuryprone]

I'm going to have to agree with Doc.

[Jetsetlemming]

Wow. You're so wrong it's not even funny..Also YOU do not get to decide what someone else finds offensive. This is not singular incident.
I do however reserve the right to tell the truth and call anyone who finds it offensive fucking retarded.

[Roxie]

If you do not understand why that is offensive, then you do not understand sexism.
BTW, Feminization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminization_%28sociology%29)is a real word. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminization)

[Injuryprone]

So is google.

[Roxie]

So is "poop"

[Exeter]

I think they should make them wear pretty dresses.

[Trump]

OK, since I see what I wrote was missing a few words in strategic places (probably due to having 5 minutes a day total to check the forum, oops heh) I'll try again.

I asked who are you calling sexist? Are the prison guards the sexist ones? It looks like they just may be playing on the attitudes of the inmates. If the inmates hate wearing pink, why not make them wear pink? If they hate wearing "feminine" clothing, why not make them wear it? So it looks like the inmates are the sexist ones...

Or you are right, it could be exactly the other way around. It could be that the inmates don't care at all and the prison guards just think it is funny?

I'll state my question again, who are you claiming is sexist? Are you offended by sexist inmates? Do you really believe this issue is important enough to worry about outside the prison?

[Decade]

Jesus Hey-Zues Christ, is this really about arguing about Sexual equality anymore, or is this just to argue for the sake of arguing?

After maybe half a second of thought I move on to other more interesting topics.

Then new topic on the subject or stfu, this thread has totally lost direction. :bored:

[Roxie]

I asked who are you calling sexist? Are the prison guards the sexist ones? It looks like they just may be playing on the attitudes of the inmates. If the inmates hate wearing pink, why not make them wear pink? If they hate wearing "feminine" clothing, why not make them wear it?
My problem is with the prison guards and the idea of punishing them by "femanizing" them. Saying, "ooh look at you! you're a girl!"

It all goes back to "what's the worse thing you can call a male? female"

Also, I don't think this is really effective at all. It definently won't give them more positive attitudes to the women who work in the prison/prison hospital.

Seriously guys, this is basic.

[Jetsetlemming]

Wrong. You don't comprehend at all the concept, Roxie. I'm beginning to suspect you're intentionally missing the point and the feeling behind it just so you can shout sexism.

[Roxie]

Hah, that just made me lawl.

[Decade]

Fuck it, I tried, and I dont give a damn.

You both only obviously care less about the actual subject matter and care more about arguing amongst yourselves.

Im looking at this thread again when a new valid subject comes up or when I have one.

[PopCulturePooka]

Requested lock by OP.

I'll open it later.

[PopCulturePooka]

Thread reopened.

Please behave.

[Overkongen]

Womens are dumb, but real purrty.

[Ginner Ben]

My problem is with the prison guards and the idea of punishing them by "femanizing" them. Saying, "ooh look at you! you're a girl!"

It all goes back to "what's the worse thing you can call a male? female"

Also, I don't think this is really effective at all. It definently won't give them more positive attitudes to the women who work in the prison/prison hospital.

Seriously guys, this is basic.

Yes, because I forgot... if you call a woman "manish", "manly" or tell her she "looks like a man", she'll realise that "masculizing" her isn't offensive at all.

Come on TSS, you're being silly. People are offended if you question their gender identity.

What's the worst thing you can call a female? A lot of the time, it actually is male. You're calling sexism on this, but that's double standards. If you don't believe me, pick a girl you know. Next time you see her, work it into conversation. Tell her she's quite masculine. It'll go over well, I promise. :duh:

[Candyvan Stan]

Yes, because I forgot... if you call a woman "manish", "manly" or tell her she "looks like a man", she'll realise that "masculizing" her isn't offensive at all.

Come on TSS, you're being silly. People are offended if you question their gender identity.

What's the worst thing you can call a female? A lot of the time, it actually is male. You're calling sexism on this, but that's double standards. If you don't believe me, pick a girl you know. Next time you see her, work it into conversation. Tell her she's quite masculine. It'll go over well, I promise. :duh:

I do see what TSS means, however. From my personal experience, I've met a few girls who said they would seriously rather want to be men. I have, however, never personally met a guy who said he'd rather be a girl.

Whether that's because men are less likely to admit it or there are simply less men who want to be women is besides the point. It does appear that men are more likely to feel offended by the notion of being feminised.

The rest of her argument, however, I disagree with. However, I have no degree in psychology and she may very well be right.

[Roxie]

Yes, because I forgot... if you call a woman "manish", "manly" or tell her she "looks like a man", she'll realise that "masculizing" her isn't offensive at all.
You said it, not I. Nor did I infer such. To point out that in this situation, what they are doing is sexist is NOT to say that in another situation with a reverse punishment wouldn't be sexist--b/c in fact, it would. However, I can't really see the this working in a women's prison as punishment.

Come on TSS, you're being silly. People are offended if you question their gender identity. Sure people are offended if their gender identity is questioned. This in not mutually exclusive to this topic, nor does that make this any less sexist.
edit: In fact, the reason WHY they're using this as punishment is because it calls into "question their gender identity" Besides the fact I think it's a really stupid and most likely ineffective punishment, that's not the reason I'm calling sexist.

What's the worst thing you can call a female? A lot of the time, it actually is male.
No, no it's not. Are there male based insults? Yes.
However the majority and the ones with the most sting are female based.
You're calling sexism on this, but that's double standards.
Where's the double standard?

[japanat]

My problem is with the prison guards and the idea of punishing them by "femanizing" them. Saying, "ooh look at you! you're a girl!"

It all goes back to "what's the worse thing you can call a male? female"

Also, I don't think this is really effective at all. It definently won't give them more positive attitudes to the women who work in the prison/prison hospital.

Seriously guys, this is basic.The key here for me is that they are punishing "sexually-active inmates". This is not intended as gay bashing, but prisoners commonly call the passive partner a woman (in less respectful vocabulary, of course). Sex in prison is also often used as a violent power tool, so to speak. And prison is, by definition, punishment!

Why not use a method that the prisoners find distasteful to punish them for non-appropriate behavior? As long as it isn't physical punishment or mental torture, I say dress them in pink. Add a frilly tutu while you're at it.

[Roxie]

The key here for me is that they are punishing "sexually-active inmates". This is not intended as gay bashing, but prisoners commonly call the passive partner a woman (in less respectful vocabulary, of course). Sex in prison is also often used as a violent power tool, so to speak. And prison is, by definition, punishment!

Why not use a method that the prisoners find distasteful to punish them for non-appropriate behavior? As long as it isn't physical punishment or mental torture, I say dress them in pink. Add a frilly tutu while you're at it.
That's another problem with the article, they don't really explain what they mean by that, but then they talk a little about the women who work in the prison hospital...so I'm not sure if they're talking about sex between inmates or sexual harrasment of women workers...b/c they do talk about how this is supposed to protec them (but how? they don't say).

Punishment needs to be effective...this just seems really f'ing arbitrary.

[Kaji]

Show where it's ineffective, then. It's hardly arbitrary, as they've come up with a means of shaming inmates from continuing the action, and it's only applied under specific circumstances. Arbitrary would be the warden saying, "All right, Louis, John, Jacky, you're all in pink today! Suit up!"

[Roxie]

I never said was abosolute. I said it "seems". Meaning I don't see it helping to stop the not very well described problem. Besides, if all they can come up with is to feminize them as a form of shaming punishment...then that proves my point.

[Kaji]

Are you trying to imply you've never heard of prison rape? Usually it involves the lesser man being forced to sub for a woman for the greater. Hence, logically speaking, it's a form of inversion that doesn't involve raping the person who committed the crime in return (thus avoiding being cruel punishment). Looking at it from that perspective, it seems a quite expedient and effective means of punishing it, that's also far cheaper than extra security, supervision, and isolation. Heck, the pink jumpsuit in many ways removes the need for isolation altogether, as being seen in it by other inmates will increase the shame brought on by the punishment, thus being an even greater deterrent.

[Roxie]

huh? did you read the article provided? you might want to check up on that..yeah..

[PopCulturePooka]

I dunno.

Doesn't seem THAT effective to me.

The 'faggy' prison rapists might actually ENJOY the pink Jumpsuits.

The agro, psycho butch ones probably won't care or be that shamed by it anyway.

The ones who are in there long term will just think a jumpsuits a jumpsuit, fuck the colour.

[Roxie]

the article talks about sexual acts performed in front of officers....but that could range from mastrubation to mutual fucking, to rape, so which is it? They don't say....but somehow this is supposed to protect the women who work in the prison.

Basically, that article is trash.

[Lea]

LOL... Pink jumpsuits. I personally don't see the big deal. I laughed at the thought of some ass raping criminal wearing pink. HA!!

And I've always wondered why a female would want to work in a male prison. Jesus christ!! Especially in those maximum sercurity prisons. You have gangs like ms-13 in there! Talk about a nightmare.

[Roxie]

I thought this was excellent. There are links ALL thorough out this post, so if you 're interested in anything it says, follow the link provided and you'll find a link to it there.

Feel free to ask the blogger's all your questions. They're pretty fast responding.
Feminism is not your expectation. (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/10/28/feminism-is-not-your-expectation/trackback/)
Posted by Mandolin | October 28th, 2007

Feminism is for atheists. Feminism is for Jews, both ethnic and religious. Feminism is for Muslims. Feminism is for pagans. Feminism is for Baha’i feminists. Feminism is for Mormons. Feminism is for Unitarian Universalists. Feminism is for Quakers and Buddhist-Quakers. Feminism is for the anti-religious, and for the anti-atheistic too. Feminism is for evangelicals.

Feminism is for black people. Feminism is for white people. Feminism is for Boricuas. Feminism is for chicanas. Feminism is for desi people. Feminism is for Asian people. Feminism is for people with a mixed race identity.

Feminism is not the top 3 blogs on your blogroll.

Feminism is for men. Feminism is for women. Feminism is even for white men.

Feminism is for environmental activists. Feminism is for animal rights activists, and those who prioritize people. Feminism is for anti-racists, but we certainly have our racist moments. Feminism is for the transsexual and genderfluid, but we also have our moments of gender essentialism and transphobic screeds.

Feminism is for trans men, even when they halt transition. Feminism is for trans women. Feminism is for cissexuals. Feminism is for people whose gender identity formation is ambiguous.

Feminism is a constellation.

Feminism is for mothers. Feminism is for the childfree. Feminism is for mothers who stay at home with their children, and mothers who work outside the home, and those who homeschool. Feminism is for fathers: gay, straight, partnered, and unparterned. Feminism is for fathers of boys and girls. Feminism is for stay at home dads.

Feminism is for heterosexual couples raising children, gay parents raising children, polyamorous people raising children, single parents raising children, and people who prefer to help raise the children of friends and family.

Feminism is for lesbians. Feminism is for gay men. Feminism is for bisexuals. Feminism is for people who like to look at men. Feminism is for asexuals. Feminism is for polyamorous women and polyamorous men. Feminism is for the monogamous. Feminism is for those creating unusual families.

Feminism is not just Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin. Feminism is not just Bell Hooks and Angela Davis. Feminism is not just “do-me feminism.” It is not just “choice feminism.” It is not just suffragettes, third wave, or second wave.

Feminism is for psychiatrists. Feminism is for the anti-psychiatry. Feminism is for people with PTSD, cyclothymia, narcissistic personality disorder.

Feminism is for the fat, the thin, and those with eating disorders. It is for real women, with and without curves.

Feminism is for people who I admire, people who piss me off, and people who I admire who piss me off.

Feminism is about safe spaces, or constructing safe spaces for groups that aren’t always centered in feminist discourse, or feeling frustrated with the pitfalls of constructing safe spaces, or criticizing the implementation of safe spaces.

Feminism is for those who adopt or foster, and those who use IVF, and those who’ve given birth to many children. Feminism is for the married, the divorced, the unmarried, the several times divorced (and happily remarried), those who are in interracial marriages, those who are in cross-generational relationships, those whose hard-won joyful marriages anger many Americans, and those who are unfairly barred from marriage.

Feminism is for the disabled and the abled and the parents of the disabled, and again feminism has its problematic moments.

Feminism has many definitions. Sometimes, it has none.

Feminism is for people who are pro-sex, and people who believe that pornography is irredeemable, and for sex workers. Feminism is for people who believe that values must sometimes be compromised from necessity, and those who believe that actions must be consistent with beliefs.

Feminism is for people who live at the intersection of many axes of oppression.

Feminism is for Americans in New York, California, North Dakota, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas. It’s for people in Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Syria (by way of Iraq), India both “>group and singly, South Africa, and people who are pan-Africans — and that is only a sampling of blogs and not of activists on the ground.

Feminism is for people who practice BDSM, and people who think BDSM is oppressive, but probably not for many Goreans.

Feminism is for those who believe in litmus tests, and those who eschew them.

Feminism is for Republicans. Feminism is for fiscal conservatives. Feminism is for libertarians. Feminism is for anarchists and Marxists. Feminism is for Democrats. Feminism is for people in the Green party and people who think all American alternatives are far too conservative and people who are looking at American politics from the outside.

Sometimes, feminism is made of straw. Sometimes, someone really made the arguments that are often used as straw.

Feminism is for those who believe in reproductive rights — whether that means focusing on birth rape, on making sure that women of color have real choices, believing abortion is a moral good, disapproving of abortion but approving of choice, struggling for a principled feminist pro-life stance, educating people about masturbation, attacking domestic violence, or building up childcare options.

Feminism is not represented by this list, any more than it’s represented by any other single perspective on the whole.

Feminism is academic, or emotional. It is filled with rants and careful logical arguments.

Feminism is for lawyers (lots and lots of lawyers), writers (lots and lots of them too), scientists, engineers, recording artists, professors, students, quite a few sex workers, stay at home parents, veterans, ballerinas, and veterans who are also ballerinas. Feminists live on government assistance. They are poor, and middle class, and the kind of people who know the difference between OKOP and NOKOP.

Feminism is not about reaffirming every part of your identity, or of mine. Feminism is not about burning these things away, either. Privilege exists within discourses of feminism, but that does not invalidate the privileged or the underprivileged’s claim to feminism.

Feminism is not what I believe. Feminism is not what you believe. Feminism is Feminisms, many and varied.

[rl*united]

Feminism is so last century.

Thread over.

[Beowulf]

Feminism is so last century.

Thread over.
I dare you to say this to any woman you are romantically involved with.

Edit: Or your mother.

[rl*united]

I dare you to say this to any woman you are romantically involved with.

Edit: Or your mother.

Girls here don`t get sparked off as easily on the topic of feminism lol. It might be because it`s associated with the American way of thinking as presented in Hollywood movies and TV shows. It`s so excessively overused on all medias that it doesn`t surprise anyone anymore. So nobody takes it too seriously, sorry.

My mother has never been angsty about being a woman, mind you. She`s happy to deal with my dad any day if he`s giving her trouble.

I don`t treat women any different than men - I do the same favors and when I say that I mean nothing less and nothing more. But I don`t need a cast of women who are specifically unsatisfied to have been born female to tell me how to behave on a daily basis. I imagine it must be hard for you to live in a society where people sue each other over a glance or a stronger word...

As many things feminism did a great job in the last hundred years to fight for women`s rights to be able to vote or work the same jobs play the same sports, get an equal share of society and life in general. But that`s over with as far as I`m concerned. So I don`t care.

Seen as we already have the basis for equality I believe this century`s aim is to work on top of that and counter the idealistic and thus impractical sense of feminism, to set the reasonable boundaries where women can be women in their own ways and the same for men, without the two groups constantly attacking each other. Equality by definition is achieved. I say it`s time for diversity.

PS: And if there ever is something remotely similar to Gender Equality class in Bulgaria it`d be ROFLD upon so hard people will be dieing in the streets. Here learning the boundaries is considered a part of upbringing and not a social science that can be taught at school. Meaning if you`re a sexist peace of shit you`re allowed to all the big titted blonds you can score but that`s it. No other general group of women will take a second look at you. There`s a word here 'svesten' used for men which means 'decent' but also one who`s strong and able to cope with life and be a pleasant rational person in general. It includes a set of traits that every girl is looking for when she wants more than a nights pleasure. So one might say that women here know what they want and know how to get it even if feminism is not too big with our kind of society.

[marycatherine]

Feminism is so last century.

Thread over.

I think I agree. Some women just bitch and bitch about it - and really, where does it get them anymore?

I think what a lot of feminists need to do is get over themselves and just work with the men around them in a cooperative fashion. I don't mean for them to be walked all over - but demanding things just because they're female is stupid.

I've also heard that many women don't demand higher pay checks when negotiating a salary and they don't usually ask for a raise later on.
Men negotiate their salary more and ask for more raises. If you never ask for something, who's just going to give more money away?

And many of them don't take advantage of opportunities presented to them.
As a college student, I hear about scholarship programs, internships and many other things available to students who apply for the position/grant/whatever. You know what gender doesn't usually apply for these things? Women. You know who complains that men have it all made for them? The same women who didn't apply for anything.

I can't feel sorry for a whole gender when they don't actively seek opportunities out and take advantage of what they're given. Seize it! Go after it! And if you don't get it, consider that someone else just might be better than you are - for whatever it is. Jumping to the conclusion of "it's because I'm a woman" is something that I hate about the women who do it.

[Decade]

Wow, this thread is back with a vengance.

If you all listen carefully enough, we can actually hear Roxie's vagina explode from reading this :eyepop:

I'm gonna digest this a little bit more before throwing out another opinion.

[Roxie]

What? It's not like I've never heard that before.

[Decade]

^Actually, true that. Im just use to like an essay like response from you (honestly, you go thorough, at least through links)