Tell Me/MT About Instances Youve Personally Seen Of A Female Being Harmed By A Male

[Cyriacus]

"but he kept declining and making excuses after excuses."

Missed that until Lawson quoted it.
Actually, i gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation, then explained it to you when you couldnt fathom it.

 

[Cyriacus]

I challenge you to fly to Dayton and randomly assault some young female in a bar. In return, I offer to help broker your bail bond (or at least find a Bondsman) and to make statements to the arresting Officer. C'mon, what have you got to lose?

The argument he seems to think is taking place in this thread?

EDIT: Eh, double post. My bad.

 

[pgsmith]

My interpitation is based of direct observation and experiencing all the BS involved. I have gotten very tired of being told to treat women as I would a man.. except where it is adventages to be treated as a 'Lady'. so my answer is very simple.
1: you want to run with the big dogs, fine I will hold you to a mans expectations and performance. In the Military that means that there should be NO separate barracks, Showers, or Bathrooms. NO diference in the Basic Training Haircut, and NO difference at all in the PT TEST!!

Wow! Don't know where you live, but you've got a lot of unresolved anger that you should sort through for your own peace of mind there! No separate barracks or showers for women is assinine. Women have been in the military for longer than either of us has been alive, just get used to it already!

In the Job place, you want to do that job that man has, fine, do it as well or better! and no quotas of women or men employed. you can NOT do the JOB as Well as a man they would keep, You GO DOWN THE ROAD.. that is equal Treatment. I got no problem with that. By the same token if you can do the job as well and are qualifed then you should be treated the same in hiring and the same about all OTHER BENEFITS, Just as you would be fore FIRING!.

That's almost how it is today, now that we're gettting away from affirmative action and enforced quotas for minorities. Of course, the quotas had to be forced at the time because there were too many macho men that didn't want to have to compete equally with women or minorities.

Actually Women or Rather Ladies were valued much more Highly then Men! that is why it was WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST!! very very very few women went down for instance on the Titanic. the life boats were full of women and children and had very very few men, mostly to either row or to con the life boats and were officers skilled in seamanship to preserve the women and children's lives! the men were left on the vessel to go down with it. So It is a matter of judgement.

In 1912, women had to be first because they weren't allowed to make any decisions for themselves. They couldn't work, couldn't vote, and couldn't own property. You can wish for that state of affairs all you want, but I greatly prefer my wife to be my partner in life, not my servant.

I have never demanded a Lady do nothing, just felt that a few things were not for them, just as a few things are not for men... Combat on a battlefield is not for women I do not think... but they say they can.. fine then they better be able to go the full way, other wise men will die trying to keep them alive where they would more likely let a man deal with the situation himself.
physiology has less upper body strength to women then men. Women often do well in some things that most men do not.

Nothing is Free. sorry but that is the way it is.

I actually agree with you somewhat here in that women have decidedly less upper body strength than men. If women wish to join the infantry, be it Army or Marines, they need to be held to the same physical standards as men. If they can handle it physically, I see no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do the job. I don't see most of the soldiers I served with objecting either, but maybe your outfit was different? Also, a person almost never has to deal with a situation by themselves in combat. Situations are always dealt with as a unit.

 

[lklawson]

Wow! Don't know where you live, but you've got a lot of unresolved anger that you should sort through for your own peace of mind there! No separate barracks or showers for women is assinine. Women have been in the military for longer than either of us has been alive, just get used to it already!

I don't see any "anger issues" here but just an insistence that if some group wants equal treatment then that group should have to give up special privileges. That doesn't seem so odd to most folks.

That's almost how it is today, now that we're gettting away from affirmative action and enforced quotas for minorities. Of course, the quotas had to be forced at the time because there were too many macho men that didn't want to have to compete equally with women or minorities.

I remember Affirmative Action. It was never what it was billed as. To call it a huge Cluster would be overly generous. Further, if you look at the actual movements at the time, the "good ol' white boys" that you seem to think didn't want to support "equal pay for equal work" were among the leading proponents of the measures, mostly for political purposes.

In 1912, women had to be first because they weren't allowed to make any decisions for themselves. They couldn't work, couldn't vote, and couldn't own property.

That's not true at all. Women could, in fact, work outside the home. It was quite common. Heck, women got factory jobs all the time and were pretty freaking important in those factory jobs during the U.S. Civil War (at least on the Union side). Women could, in fact, vote. Just not in Federal Elections. The Suffrage Movement started gaining voting rights for women in State Elections in the mid-1800's. The earliest was, ims, actually before the Civil War (have to double check that, though). Finally, women could, in fact own property pretty much everywhere.

Not sure where you got your Women's Rights info but it's not right. Now, I'm not saying that life was all Peaches and Cream for Gender Equality, merely that it wasn't as bad as you seem to believe.

You can wish for that state of affairs all you want, but I greatly prefer my wife to be my partner in life, not my servant.

I don't recall Chinto making that statement.

I actually agree with you somewhat here in that women have decidedly less upper body strength than men. If women wish to join the infantry, be it Army or Marines, they need to be held to the same physical standards as men. If they can handle it physically, I see no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do the job. I don't see most of the soldiers I served with objecting either, but maybe your outfit was different?

Most rank and file agree with that sentiment. However, the fact is that the U.S. military is clearing women for Combat roles but have still implemented different physical standards. Men are held to a higher physical standard (strength and endurance) than women. If the goal were really to be "fair" then that wouldn't be the case.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[pgsmith]

I don't see any "anger issues" here but just an insistence that if some group wants equal treatment then that group should have to give up special privileges. That doesn't seem so odd to most folks.

If you cannot see wanting men and women to share barracks and showers as odd, then you've either never been in the military or I'm just missing something in this discussion. I see it as totally irrational myself.

I remember Affirmative Action. It was never what it was billed as. To call it a huge Cluster would be overly generous. Further, if you look at the actual movements at the time, the "good ol' white boys" that you seem to think didn't want to support "equal pay for equal work" were among the leading proponents of the measures, mostly for political purposes.

I agree that it was a total CF. However, it did achieve it's purpose, albeit not necessarily the purpose that it's original political proponents desired. What it achieved was to integrate schools and workplaces so that it is no longer an unusual thing to see a multi-racial non-gender-specific workplace. Every place I've worked for has stated that they do not discriminate, and I see that as a truly positive outcome.

That's not true at all. Women could, in fact, work outside the home. It was quite common. Heck, women got factory jobs all the time and were pretty freaking important in those factory jobs during the U.S. Civil War (at least on the Union side). Women could, in fact, vote. Just not in Federal Elections. The Suffrage Movement started gaining voting rights for women in State Elections in the mid-1800's. The earliest was, ims, actually before the Civil War (have to double check that, though). Finally, women could, in fact own property pretty much everywhere.

Not sure where you got your Women's Rights info but it's not right. Now, I'm not saying that life was all Peaches and Cream for Gender Equality, merely that it wasn't as bad as you seem to believe.

I agree that I was exaggerating a bit when I made my statement about women in 1912, but I wasn't exaggerating by much. Only a bare handful of states allowed women to vote in 1912, and most of those were new western states. Likewise, not all of the states had yet passed women's property laws wherein property owned by women did not become their husband's property upon marriage. Before WWI, the number of jobs that women were allowed to hold was fairly small. It wasn't until so many men left to fight the war that women were allowed to actually work at anything other than menial labor. That's the way I remember it from my reading, but I don't have time to hunt down references at the moment.

My point was that women were thought of differently back then in all ways, and it wasn't necessarily good. I do think that chinto's reaction to my original statement was a little extreme, and his repeated use of caps indicates some unresolved anger issues. No skin off my nose either way, I've thrown in my two cent's worth already.

 

[pgsmith]

Most rank and file agree with that sentiment. However, the fact is that the U.S. military is clearing women for Combat roles but have still implemented different physical standards. Men are held to a higher physical standard (strength and endurance) than women. If the goal were really to be "fair" then that wouldn't be the case.

Just wanted to pass on something that I ran across by the Associated Press that is relevant to our conversation ...

Women may be able to start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later under plans set to be announced by the Pentagon that would slowly bring women into thousands of combat jobs, including those in elite special operations forces.

Details of the plans were obtained by The Associated Press. They call for requiring women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reviewed the plans and has ordered the services to move ahead.

 

[Cyriacus]

If you cannot see wanting men and women to share barracks and showers as odd, then you've either never been in the military or I'm just missing something in this discussion. I see it as totally irrational myself.

This is pure opinion on my part, but gender equality cant come with caveats or exceptions if you want it. You give up privileges when you give up privilege.
Equal opportunities can though, gender equality cannot.

 

[pgsmith]

This is pure opinion on my part, but gender equality cant come with caveats or exceptions if you want it. You give up privileges when you give up privilege.
Equal opportunities can though, gender equality cannot.

It seems to me that you are equating gender equality, which is equal opportunity, with gender sameness, which is an impossibility as men and women are not and can never be the same, no matter that some people wish them to be.

 

[Cyriacus]

It seems to me that you are equating gender equality, which is equal opportunity, with gender sameness, which is an impossibility as men and women are not and can never be the same, no matter that some people wish them to be.

Not exactly - Im just a bit biased by the fact that most of the feminists ive met are more like supremacists. Be glad i dont judge the whole thing by those people, and that im smart enough to see that thats not the point.

 

[DavidMoreland]

Not exactly - Im just a bit biased by the fact that most of the feminists ive met are more like supremacists. Be glad i dont judge the whole thing by those people, and that im smart enough to see that thats not the point.

Its thread for "women harassed by men " or equating gender equality?I have never seen equating gender equality till now and we need to flow this kinda narrow mentality.

 

[Cyriacus]

Its thread for "women harassed by men " or equating gender equality?I have never seen equating gender equality till now and we need to flow this kinda narrow mentality.

Mate, you may want to take note of the fact that i started this thread, so i sort of know what it was originally about.
However, ill give you the benfit of the doubt. On a discussion board, much like a real conversation, topics branch off into sub-topics. Thats just how these things go. Gender equality was mentioned, and a brief discussion ensued.

 

[DavidMoreland]

Yes,I believe in gender equality gives respect to women in all the respect and this we have to start from our home then society to make gender level equal and also decreases the harassment made by men on women. For that we have to spread social awareness in the society with the help of education.

 

[Cyriacus]

Yes,I believe in gender equality gives respect to women in all the respect and this we have to start from our home then society to make gender level equal and also decreases the harassment made by men on women. For that we have to spread social awareness in the society with the help of education.

And as we do so, we have to ensure were promoting equality and not supremacy. Fine line, and one that people can and do exploit.

 

[Balrog]

I saw a situation in a food court in a local mall. Apparently, the couple was divorcing and met there on supposedly neutral ground to discuss something. The guy blew up, called the woman a stupid ***** (and a lot worse), then stood up and kicked the legs of her chair so that she fell to the floor. He was immediately swarmed by me and four other strangers and we sat on him till the cops arrived.

 

[DavidMoreland]

I saw a situation in a food court in a local mall. Apparently, the couple was divorcing and met there on supposedly neutral ground to discuss something. The guy blew up, called the woman a stupid ***** (and a lot worse), then stood up and kicked the legs of her chair so that she fell to the floor. He was immediately swarmed by me and four other strangers and we sat on him till the cops arrived.

Hey dude you have done a very great job congrats for taking the first step against women harassment and by giving the stupid guy to the cops. I salute to you and your friend's courage.