Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on February 28, 2003, 09:51:04 PM
-
We should re-broadcast it on Iraq. That will make irakis think twice before trying to resist...
P.S. What really surprised me was not that scores if not hundreds of women cadetes got raped over the years and everyone knew about that and did nothing, but how come nobody got killed?
We had quite a lot of abuse in the soviet army - nothing like rape, of course - and from time to time somebody would get his brains ventilated on a shooting range or a guard duty.
I am not even sure what kind of military I dislike more - the rapists and their friends who kept quiet or those who allowed themselves to be raped without consequences because of carreer considerations?
miko
-
Ya, 20/20, now there's objective reporting.
MiniD
-
Corruption is quite deeply embedded in the U.S. military. I am not sure if you have seen "Pentagon Wars", but it is the true story of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and how the Army kept rigging tests for this death trap to pass. David Hackworth, Americas highest decorated living soldier is a big advocate of military reform, and is quite the whistle blower on military scandals.
The main problem with the military is that there are alot of officers only concerned with promotion. Todays military is a "1 strike and your out" kind of deal. Then theres the enlisted guys who don't belong in the military at all, but they cant do anything else.
-
i honestly believe it has to do with the "stand up and lie like a white man" crap that is passed off as nessisary evil in order to get what is right dont matter if good men die in the process in peace time. in our military as a fairly recent exvet i have seen it . the people in positions or power got there by kissing bellybutton not being better (you can tell the endlessly talk about how important it is to be better) while being petty sissys almost to a man themselves. or stark ravin death wish loonies very little in between.
the "conservative" viewpoint that is so popular in the military was disgusting enough to me that i changed political partys and blew my life (stoped lying like a white man) to get away from the lying cheats we call managers/officers in our american culture to save some piece of my soul. i entered the navy a conservative republican and left it the furthest from the ideals of the tratorious lying bastards calling them selves conservatives i could. i will spend the rest of my life fighting them. if there is to be a death of america it will come at their hands. think what you will im totaly serious.
i have been so effected by actions i saw in the military this is the toned down version.
-
dont ask dont tell bite in the arse?
-
Hey now... the Air Force needs all the propoganda they can get.
The Constitution requires that the goverment maintain an Army and a Navy. There's no mention of an air force. :D
-
Mini D: Ya, 20/20, now there's objective reporting.
Right in front of the camera a reporter asks whatever general is currently a superintendant of the Airforce Acadamy: "How many of the 99 incidents of rape reported over the last 7 years in this acadamy do you believe were true?"
The general thinks for about five seconds and responds: "I believe all of them were true."
Than he says only one case was brought to court-martial and aquitted for lack of evidence and that there are many more abuses than reported because it does not pay to report one.
How the hell more objective could it be? Do you want the general to undergo medical examination to make sure he was not kidnapped, drugged and tortured by 20/20 affiliates into making that admission?
From time to time you should swich your prejudices off and actually see and listen what is going on rather than what station broadcasts it - and if your cult leader does not approve of you watching 20/20, at least you could have asked here what the heck I am talking about before venturing an off-the shelf opinion.
I am pissed off about it because right there my wife asked me: "Do you still want to send our daughters to serve in the army?" On which I replied "Well, we can raise them in a way that they cannot be taken advantage of no matter what is done to others..."
But then I thought long those lines:
She can say no and take no sh#t from anyone. She can try to not to participate in any activities that would give anyone reason to blackmail her - drink coke while her friends drink beer, not do any minor infractions and violations that any soldier/cadet does. etc. She could even warn her friends that she is not going to put out to a superior to save their tulips from a reprimand. She would have no friends but she could survive. Still, that does not change the fact that she would serve under officers who used their authority to force themselves on subordinates - and probably preferred rape to regular sex because I cannot believe such people woudl have truble finding willing partners. She would serve with comrades who knew about others being raped and did nothing. She would serve with comrades so cowardly and lacking in honor, that they allowed a women - their buddy - be raped to avoid a minor reprimand for drinking beer. She would serve under officers who care only about their career rather than well-being of the soldiers under their command or laws or anything at all and would sweep under the carpet any crime that could potentially mar their record.
I am not even talking of how such army would behave towards an enemy's troops, prisoners and civilians...
What the heck do I do? Teach my children not to serve in the military and not be ready to defend their country? Have them learn French and try for Legion Etrangere? Have them learn Hibrew and apply for a tour in IDF? Have them learn English and apply to british military? Any other real military out there in a democratic country?
Should I "home school" them in military matters? I will do that anyway but there is a difference between knowing your way around weapons and being a soldier of one's country.
miko :mad:
-
Right Miko.
Now go and ask the same thing at any college campus.
Hell "60% of all women will be raped at some point in their life". That's a pretty rediculous statistic given that I know probably a few hundred women and none of them have been raped.
The truth is, the definition of rap has expanded to cover groping, sex while drunk, bad sex in addition to the truly haneous acts. It diminishes the statistic and inflates the numbers. Hell, making a woman feel uncomfortable in a group can now be construed as rape.
Then... walk into a bar on an average night. Look around and guess that 90% of the women that leave there with a man could press charges for rape the next day.
Its 20/20, the news group that put detonator charges in Chevy pickups so they could get one exploding on film. They have a tendancy to inflate, expand and exagerate to the point that they have long stopped being credible journalists.
MiniD
-
yeah Mini, everyone knows that all women secretly are just begging to get it !!
Miko, in case you didn't get a notification, the only TV station that is taken seriously here is Fox, but you have to get your lobotomy first before you can watch it. Once you start, you'll find it very familiar. I sure did.
-
Mini D: Now go and ask the same thing at any college campus....
...The truth is, the definition of rap has expanded to cover groping, sex while drunk...
Its 20/20, the news group that put detonator charges in Chevy pickups so they could get one exploding on film.
You still do not get it, Mini...
I am not basing my judgement on what 20/20 was saying but on what the airforce general was saying in front of the camera and on what those eight young women were saying in front of the camera - including teh one still in teh academy.
They did not use any words that would have to be beeped off but they were very explicit and what was done to them was quite definitely rape and or sex forced by blackmail. That is of course if what they are saying was true - buy if the academy superintendant believed them and said so right there, who am I to argue?
Why don't you check the transcript of the show - skip anything that 20/20 people say and read the witness statements.
miko
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hey now... the Air Force needs all the propoganda they can get.
The Constitution requires that the goverment maintain an Army and a Navy. There's no mention of an air force. :D
EWell, I guess when the Constitution was written if we had powered flight then likely there would have been provision for a maintained USAF. However Harry S. Truman fixed that in 1947
"On Sept. 17, 1947, the new National Military Establishment, including the Office of Secretary of Defense and the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, came into being. President Harry S. Truman had approved the National Security Act of 1947 on July 26. He also issued Executive Order 9877 which by presidential directive outlined the duties of the three services. Each was responsible for the area in which it operated -- ground, sea and air, although the Navy retained an air arm and the Marine Corps.
On Sept. 18, 1947, W. Stuart Symington was sworn in as the first secretary of the Air Force with the new Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal in attendance. After many years of planning, an independent air arm was formed, an equal to the Army and Navy. Based on achievements in air superiority, the Air Force became the "first line of defense" in a post-war world.
Shortly after taking office, Symington said: "In this day when a powerful counterattack is America's only real answer to aggression, there can be no question that we need the world's first Air Force. It is only through the global, flashing mobility of the Air Force that we can hold our counterattack poised ... we feel, with deep conviction, that the destiny of the United States rests on the continued development of our Air Force."
-
Any bastard that commits rape should be castrated, no exceptions. Having said that I'll wonder out loud how the US military academy rape statistics compare with their civilian counterparts?
-
I dunno if you want my opinion on this but here it is:
I didn't see the episode so I read this:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/US/2020_airforce_allegations030228.html
The types of things being described in this could easily have been avoided.
These people are putting themselves in high risk situations. Some simple rules for personal conduct could have prevented 100% of what I read at this site.
Don't go privately with anyone anywhere, there is no reason to be singled out of your immediate group to somewhere private with a male no matter WHO HE IS.
NO REASON EVER.
If he threatens your career call him on it, if he takes action speak to your next up in the chain of command, if that gets no where go to the local military law office.
Don't accept blackmail, don't accept rape. Fight back. Don't get drunk and be vulnerable in public.
taking one for the team is one thing, but never would you team allow you to be raped or want you to be raped in order to hide from a anything, get some priorities in life.
be honorable and fair, work hard, don't cheat, lie or steal. etc etc....
Don't make it easy because there will always be someone to take advantage, be respectable and a good friend. Know your limits and your weaknesses and guard them accordingly.
These are just some basic things that people should know about living life.
It doesn't mean no friends, it doesn't mean no fun.
and that 60% number from MiniD, I'm going to guess more than half of those rapes occured when they were still little girls and helpless, or they were engaging in high risk behavior.
I will say that I believe it's more rare for a adult woman not engaging in high risk behavior to get caught alone and raped by someone she doesn't know.
My military experience was unique in my life and I would never trade the privilege of being a part of that family for anything.
-
AKIron: Any bastard that commits rape should be castrated, no exceptions. Having said that I'll wonder out loud how the US military academy rape statistics compare with their civilian counterparts?
Other than a family of a rapist, who would be inetrested in hiding the rapist from justice and threatening the victim to keep quiet? Especially among officers who's duty is to uphold US laws and protect americans from enemies foreigh and domestic?
Kanth - of course teh predators select their victims among inexperienced and trusting and easily awed by authority. Those were farm girls of 18 from nice families - they would have made brillliant and courageous officers eventually, but not right from the mothers' skirts. Just the time to pounce...
As for not letting superiors hide the rape - the best thing is to confront them with a sample of sperm, bruises and a gutted body of the offender.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Other than a family of a rapist, who would be inetrested in hiding the rapist from justice and threatening the victim to keep quiet?
I dunno, perhaps the staff at any number of universities around the country?
BTW I was not nor am I defending anyone that would hide such occurences. I was suggesting that rape isn't exclusive to the military and I'm curious as to whether the numbers are higher or lower than in a comparative civilian environment.
-
This is right. And you are worried about your daughter's safety. Don't let her be like those farm girls.
Whether she goes into the military or to college or wherever there are predators.
Not only from the mother's skirts, but the father's skirts as well. Unless you believe that a father shouldn't teach his daughters anything or that a mother cannot teach her daughter how to take care of herself.
If people choose to live in ignorance, at the very least they should be aware of the number of surprises they will encounter in their lifetimes.
Originally posted by miko2d
Kanth - of course teh predators select their victims among inexperienced and trusting and easily awed by authority. Those were farm girls of 18 from nice families - they would have made brillliant and courageous officers eventually, but not right from the mothers' skirts. Just the time to pounce...
miko
-
A quick search yielded this:
http://www.dailyillini.com/oct02/oct30/news/stories/campus01.shtml
More to follow later.
another:
http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/10/24/loc_collegecrimes24.html
and another interesting article:
http://www.umass.edu/journal/car/studentwork/collins.html
-
women should not be in the military. You can put em there but it requires extraordinary measures to circumvent human nature. It's not worth it in my opinion. I do not operate on how things should be... only on how they are.
lazs
-
Lazs, they shouldn't be there because their male colleagues cannot keep their dicks in their pants?
Or because of modesty issues? I find modesty is the second casualty in war, just after truth.
Or aren't they physically strong enough? Any of them?
Or is it rape by enemy soldiers you're worried about? I guess getting shot is better.
I see no reason why women shouldn't be allowed to serve their country by actively participating in the defense of it.
Btw, it doesn't matter if they do high risk things. It doesn't matter if they haven't got the guts to report a rape. No means no, and coerced sex is always wrong. And it ain't the womens fault.
If a woman was to strip in front of 10 drunken horny soldiers, tongue kiss each and every one of them an stroke their genitals, only to then say 'no', and she gets raped, the problem is the men. It's not illegal to arouse people with their consent. It is illegal to force ones genitals into the body of a screaming, sobbing, unwilling woman.
No means no. You might disagree with the womans behavior, but the blame is solely on those who take the law in their own hands and violate in a horrible way another human being.
The fact that it was/is covered up by the military is disgusting. I find myself, yet again, agreeing with Miko2D's sentiments.
-
rape isn't considered human nature by most laz.
Originally posted by lazs2
You can put em there but it requires extraordinary measures to circumvent human nature.
lazs
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Btw, it doesn't matter if they do high risk things. It doesn't matter if they haven't got the guts to report a rape. No means no, and coerced sex is always wrong. And it ain't the womens fault.
And therein lies the PC roadkill that totally skews this issue.
Coerced sex is technically any sex that wasn't the woman's idea in the first place, while she was sober and well rested. The whole thing is purely subjective and is entirely impossible to prove one way or the other. Coerced and Forced are not interchangeable words.
Still a BS way to track things. If you knew some of the people (men and women) that went into the military, you'd undestand the room for things like this to happen.
Basically, in a predominantly young male environment, you have 99 cases over 7 years. Each year that 14 men (or fewer) out of thousands that create a problem. Once again, compare that to any college. You'll find an order of magnitude difference.
You'll also find many of the same issues in regards to what is able to be charged. Its very difficult to prove these situations... especially in the greyer "I was coerced" sides of the house... or when alchohol was involved and judgement/memory is impared.
I'm not trying to excuse rape, nor say the women could have avoided the situation all together. I wasn't there. I am trying to say that the Academies do a decent job given the concentration of testosteron on the campus in comparison to other schools.
You send them to the Academy to learn to behave proffessionally. There is a reason you have to teach them. They are kids that need to be turned into men.
MiniD
-
AKIron: I dunno, perhaps the staff at any number of universities around the country?
First, it is not a illegal for a civilian not to report a crime. It is certainly illegal for an officer to conceal a crime affecting his command.
Second, stuff at univercities do not have a legal authority over the students. They are not "commanding officers". It is understandable that a college would not want bad publicity but it is a pure analogy comparing military with college in that respect.
More correct analogy would be local police. If local police did want to investigate a crime because it would affect their stats, that would be a completely different matter than if civilian concealed it.
A student who is raped is supposed to call police, not her history teacher. A military cadets must report to his/her officer and await further orders.
lazs2: women should not be in the military. You can put em there but it requires extraordinary measures to circumvent human nature.
You mean men just cannot help themselves but rape?
Basically, in a predominantly young male environment, you have 99 cases over 7 years. Each year that 14 men (or fewer) out of thousands that create a problem. Once again, compare that to any college. You'll find an order of magnitude difference.
First, the number of incidents are probably much higher because the way authorities dealt with reported ones dissuades the victims from reporting them.
Second, besides 14 man a year raping the girls, there are hundreds of men aware of that and doing nothing or cooperating with a rapist. That is not how an officer and a gentleman should behave, is it?
miko
-
No miko, now you are inflating things. Hundreds know about the rapes? This is simply an unfounded assumption. Once again why I don't like 20/20's style of reporting.
I'm not trying to diminish what happened. But I'm not trying to treat it as if this is some kind of excessive situation. The investigation was into one specific institution and you are reacting to that. Put equal effort into any institution and see what gets dug up.
20/20 is one of the best programs at finding a hot topic and digging up enough information to say whatever they want about it.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by miko2d
AKIron: I dunno, perhaps the staff at any number of universities around the country?
First, it is not a illegal for a civilian not to report a crime. It is certainly illegal for an officer to conceal a crime affecting his command. miko
Actually, you are incorrect. Did you read any of the links I posted? It is required by law for the Universities to report those incidents.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Those were farm girls of 18 from nice families - they would have made brillliant and courageous officers eventually, but not right from the mothers' skirts.
So if they were mean city girls from dysfunctional families it would have been acceptable, or it wouldn't have affected them as much?
-
Neither, I believe he was meaning that they would have been exposed to a larger number of different types of people in the city including more varieties of bad folks.
making it easier for them to recognize and stay away from them.
but I could be mistaken.
Originally posted by Mathman
So if they were mean city girls from dysfunctional families it would have been acceptable, or it wouldn't have affected them as much?
-
I've never known young girls from poor neighborhoods nor rich to have any more/less insight into men at that age. They're all pretty stupid. That's why college is such a learning experience. The problem is, you don't only learn good lessons.
BTW...
Depending on what college you're going to... the men aren't the only ones preying on the new influx of freshmen girls.
MiniD
-
I don't think the wealth of their families was the point but the degree of their socialization. Those in a more isolated locale probably having less (idea of the dangers of other people) than those in the city.
Originally posted by Mini D
I've never known young girls from poor neighborhoods nor rich to have any more/less insight into men at that age. They're all pretty stupid. That's why college is such a learning experience. The problem is, you don't only learn good lessons.
BTW...
Depending on what college you're going to... the men aren't the only ones preying on the new influx of freshmen girls.
MiniD
-
AKIron: Actually, you are incorrect. Did you read any of the links I posted? It is required by law for the Universities to report those incidents.
No. I did not read your links. If they are required by law, than it is worse than I thought. Still, we can choose univercities. We cannot choose which US army to use...
Mathman: So if they were mean city girls from dysfunctional families it would have been acceptable, or it wouldn't have affected them as much?
Mean girls would not have been easy to intimidate, coerce and keep quiet. That is why the rapists did not select those. That meaning was obvious from my original post. But that is beside the point.
Here is what I said, blue is what you've ommited:
Miko: "...the predators select their victims among inexperienced and trusting and easily awed by authority. Those were farm girls of 18 from nice families - they would have made brillliant and courageous officers eventually, but not right from the mothers' skirts. Just the time to pounce...
You represent my explanation of technicalities in how the criminals selected the victims which were easily subdued as if I would condone the rape under different circumstances - by strategically misquoting me, possibly hoping that others would not care to check what I really posted.
Why would you do such a scummy thing?
miko
-
oh I know I know!!! Pick me pick me!!
Originally posted by miko2d
Why would you do such a scummy thing?
miko
-
Miko, if you think sexual assault is worse at military academies than civilian universities or that military academies are the only ones interested in covering it up then yes, it's worse than you thought.
Here's an interesting excerpt from one of many hundreds of articles like it to be found on the web.
College Women at Risk
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, young women (ages 16-24) are most at risk of being raped. A study published in American College Health (September 1997) found that one out of every five young women surveyed reported they had been forced to have sexual intercourse. Yet even the largest universities report only a few sexual assaults per year, despite the requirement to report serious crimes on campus under the Campus Security Act of 1990. The general public may believe their local campus is a safe place, but in reality many young men have been sent the message that they can rape without consequence. Administrators often convince sexual assault victims to utilize the college's disciplinary system by promising that the matter will be handled quietly, an inducement not offered by civil authorities.
"College disciplinary boards have no business adjudicating rape cases. They should be turned over to the criminal justice system," argues NOW’s Executive Vice President Kim Gandy, a former prosecutor. "These boards do not have the training or the authority to be judges, and even if they should hold a student responsible, expulsion or suspension from college is hardly an appropriate punishment for the crime of rape."
-
AKIron: Miko, if you think sexual assault is worse at military academies than civilian universities or that military academies are the only ones interested in covering it up then yes, it's worse than you thought.
It is more of a shock than anything else. I was already of a pretty low opinion of american universities but I held the US military establishment in highest regard. :(
miko
-
And therein lies the PC roadkill that totally skews this issue.
Coerced sex is technically any sex that wasn't the woman's idea in the first place, while she was sober and well rested. The whole thing is purely subjective and is entirely impossible to prove one way or the other. Coerced and Forced are not interchangeable words.
So now it's PCs fault young men can't get laid without worrying about rape charges?
That sir is the roadkill you were looking for. Rape charges don't surprise rapists! And rape is not inevitable for women in the service. Does anyone here feel the inclination to rape a coworker? My god! This board can get downright midevil sometimes.
-
midnight Target: So now it's PCs fault young men can't get laid without worrying about rape charges?
Glad you've asked :)
http://www.fredoneverything.net/PhallicHorror.shtml
If you need a woman's opinion on feminism, look up Phyllis Schlafly.
miko
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So now it's PCs fault young men can't get laid without worrying about rape charges?
That sir is the roadkill you were looking for. Rape charges don't surprise rapists! And rape is not inevitable for women in the service. Does anyone here feel the inclination to rape a coworker? My god! This board can get downright midevil sometimes.
Sigh...
"coerced sex is always wrong"
Please... define coerced for me. Don't just quote a part of what I said... does Coerced = raped? Is "he talked me into it" equivelant to rape? Cause that's pretty much what's being said. And that's pretty much how the stats are generated.
MiniD
-
Miko,
Thanks for proving my point. It is easy to twist peoples words around by just taking a single portion of it. Do I think you meant that it was ok for this to happen to city girls but not farm girls? Of course not. All I was doing was showing that not everything is as it always appears unless you get the whole story.
Do I know what happened there? No. Do you? I would be willing to guess probably not. From what I have read, it is completely unnacceptable and totally reprehensible. I am fairly certain you feel the same way.
Anyways, just because this happened in this instance doesn't mean that all the males in the Air Force are rapists and all the women are victims. If you go by this logic, you should believe that all men are rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. just because the vast majority of violent crimes are caused by males.
-
Miko will not accept ideas that arrive in a setting that reflects reality.
If Miko thinks he cannot personally educate his daughters on appropriate behavior and defensive/avoidance proceedures, it is the fault of the state sponsored education system.
Miko flat refuses to accept that the world is not run by his standards, and bemoans the inability of the world to accept those same standards as the REAL deal.
Miko should tour West Point, Colorado Springs and Annapolis, then tour Indiana U. and any Holy Cross.
Educate yer kids right, and they'll thrive at any of those colleges.
That includes SEX education, Miko. How to avoid it, how to enjoy it. You are right about one thing.. the system should not be expected to teach kids about sex in the real world. Parents should be doing that. Whats your excuse?
Join the world Miko. Bring yer kids along.
-
No... I do not condone rape and consider any nonconcentual sex rape. I stated that I don't think women should be in the military without the military taking extraordinary measures. I don't think well intentioned pedophiles whould be teachers or scout leaders or coaches either...
Human nature is a mixture of what makes us men and women and the extraordinary amount of hormones present in service age adults. In a perfect world... women should be able to shower with men but.... sensible people realize that a small percentage of men have no brains or will power. To deny this is stupid. Most of the denial of rape in the military is denial based on fear of failure. They are ordered to have a certain behavior and unwilling to admit that they couldn't enforce the unenforcable.
Co-ed dorms have very high incidents of rape... many schools have admitted defeat and shut them down.
defining rape in a co ed situation is complex.
putting women in the military is just feel good crap. If you wish to appear fair and "equal" then youi must be prepared to take extraordinary measures. Not really worth it in my opinion.
And yes... It probly is human nature to rape. or at least... it was long ago... most of us resist the urge but human nature hasn't changed. Many things can break down our veneer of civilization. I think putting more and more temptation in front of people is kinda stupid.
lazs
-
pretty sure that most of us men here would have at least one or two sexual encounters in our life that we would not wish having to defend in a court of law. Even if we are sure of the consentual part in our own minds.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
No... I do not condone rape and consider any nonconcentual sex rape. I stated that I don't think women should be in the military without the military taking extraordinary measures. I don't think well intentioned pedophiles whould be teachers or scout leaders or coaches either...
Human nature is a mixture of what makes us men and women and the extraordinary amount of hormones present in service age adults. In a perfect world... women should be able to shower with men but.... sensible people realize that a small percentage of men have no brains or will power. To deny this is stupid. Most of the denial of rape in the military is denial based on fear of failure. They are ordered to have a certain behavior and unwilling to admit that they couldn't enforce the unenforcable.
Co-ed dorms have very high incidents of rape... many schools have admitted defeat and shut them down.
defining rape in a co ed situation is complex.
putting women in the military is just feel good crap. If you wish to appear fair and "equal" then youi must be prepared to take extraordinary measures. Not really worth it in my opinion.
And yes... It probly is human nature to rape. or at least... it was long ago... most of us resist the urge but human nature hasn't changed. Many things can break down our veneer of civilization. I think putting more and more temptation in front of people is kinda stupid.
lazs
Very well said lazs.
MiniD
-
Agree with much of what ya said Lazs. I think there are many things society imposes on us that might be contrary to our basic nature. That's one of the things that makes us different among the creatures of this planet.
However, if we neuter society's ability to impose those restrictions where will we be? Robbery, rape, and murder will become ever more common. Our laws need teeth, without them there will only be chaos, dogs and cats sleeping together, end of the world stuff here.
-
iron... i do not advocate neutering societies right to regulate behavior that harms others. I am merely saying that stupidly putting people in high risk situations is wrong. Many of you seem to have gotten your ideas of how behavior between the sexes can be from reading old robert heinlein sci fi. very pleasant but naive and... unrealistic.
As for combat.... granted, combat is different these days. support is more important than ever... actual hand to hand combat is rare and getting rarer... but .... I don't want women in a situation that requires any hand to hand... they are not good at it . I am 53 and can kick the crap out of any woman alive in hand to hand. I don't want them fighting alongside me. (and yes... all those tv shows that have women beating up men are full of toejam and you are a moron for thinking it's possible)
lazs
-
I do believe Islamic fundementalists see it your way...so you have that going for you.
you know what a burka is? (spelled many ways burqa)
Originally posted by lazs2
I think putting more and more temptation in front of people is kinda stupid.
lazs
edit for your understanding.
-
ok kanth... am i simply argueing with a woman here or can you back up what you say? What points do the islamics and myself have in common when it comes to women in this thread?
lazs
-
laz I'm trying to find some shred of recognizability in you as a normal person, our generations are far far apart and you've grown up in a different time.
I definately agree that women shouldn't be doing jobs they aren't good at, if she isn't any good at hand to hand combat, against a man, then she shouldn't be there.
And I feel that way for all jobs, if she isn't superior to the competition (no matter the gender) then she shouldn't be picked to do the job.
But I know that such individual selection isn't easy enough for you. And I agree it's far easier to just dump anything that has any possibility of failure. But then again we'd all be non-driving cave dwelling freaks...wait another analogy to those islamic fundementalists!
steraaaaange.
btw I'm pretty certain that this chick:
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/6251/ksnow.htm
would be handing you your bellybutton in about 30 seconds. :)
You gotta remember most of the women on tv fit a certain profile, usually model types that weigh about a dime and are there to be cutesy...the variety in the actual world is vast in intelligence, skill, and strength.
And it's the real world we're talking about here.
Originally posted by lazs2
As for combat.... granted, combat is different these days. support is more important than ever... actual hand to hand combat is rare and getting rarer... but .... I don't want women in a situation that requires any hand to hand... they are not good at it . I am 53 and can kick the crap out of any woman alive in hand to hand. I don't want them fighting alongside me. (and yes... all those tv shows that have women beating up men are full of toejam and you are a moron for thinking it's possible)
lazs
-
scroll up if I'm man enough for ya ;)
Originally posted by lazs2
ok kanth... am i simply argueing with a woman here or
can you back up what you say?
lazs
-
kanth, I read the link and didn't find any reference to her beating any male boxers. conversely.... some big fat out of shape bozo like joey butafuko kicked the crap out of "the worlds fittest woman" and dozens of men from andy kaufman to disc jokey in the bay area hjave made the same challenge I have and none of em have been beaten by women.... now... let's say that you could find one woman to kick my bellybutton in the ring (highly unlikely) what would that prove? that maybe 1 in a million women could defeat a 53 year old man in hand to hand combat so therefore it is ok to put women in combat roles?
I don't believe that you will be seeing any profesional fights that are not gender restricted. I consider hand to hand combat to be professional fighting. I don't think that it is me that is out of touch here.
lazs
-
And therein lies the PC roadkill that totally skews this issue.
Coerced sex is technically any sex that wasn't the woman's idea in the first place, while she was sober and well rested. The whole thing is purely subjective and is entirely impossible to prove one way or the other. Coerced and Forced are not interchangeable words.
Sex against ones will due to a knife to the throat of serious repercussions to career etc is rape in my book.
You're naeive if you define rape as physically forced to put out or physically so restrained intercourse cannot be avoided.
And you're totally wrong if you assign blame to the woman - the man can choose NOT to force himself on the woman. He can choose NOT to violate her. No matter what she does if she says no, that is it. If he forces himself despite a no, it is rape, whether done with a knife of threats to career, job., family or whatever.
You're essentially saying that if a woman is told 'either have sex with me or I kill your entire family' she is not forced to have sex, rather she is coerced. I find that ridiculous.
Still a BS way to track things. If you knew some of the people (men and women) that went into the military, you'd undestand the room for things like this to happen.
Sure, it will happen. But the blame is on the men who do it. Not the women. Not society. Not the institutions. Those entities aren't forcing the man to violate the woman.
You'll also find many of the same issues in regards to what is able to be charged. Its very difficult to prove these situations... especially in the greyer "I was coerced" sides of the house... or when alchohol was involved and judgement/memory is impared.
That's up to a jury to decide in that case. I'm talking about where to place blame.
I'm not trying to excuse rape, nor say the women could have avoided the situation all together. I wasn't there. I am trying to say that the Academies do a decent job given the concentration of testosteron on the campus in comparison to other schools.
And you're implicitly saying that because the woman engaged in high risk activities, she should have expected it. I.e she was partly to blame for it.
I disagree with this. You might like drinking with your friends and do so without having any urge to get shagged by them. We have Rule of Law - and yer entitled to drink with friends, and they're not entitled to shag you without your consent.
I get REALLY upset when people say it's the girls own fault. She didn't elect to get raped. The MEN doing the RAPING ACTIVELY make a choice. They are to blame.
Sure the girl can minimize the risk, but when a rape happens, it's the criminal doing the rape that is to blame for it.
I am on the shooting range,putting up targets. I could be somewhere else, thus minimizing the risk of getting shot. Now the bastard at the other end DELIBERATELY aim for me and shoots me. Who's to blame - me or him? Should I accept part of the blame because I was on the shooting range, knowing that he might get a psychosis and decide to shoot me? Hell no. Sure, I entered into it knowing about the risk, fair enough. But the blaim is solely in one place - on the person deliberately taking action.
You send them to the Academy to learn to behave proffessionally. There is a reason you have to teach them. They are kids that need to be turned into men.
And thy aren't turned into men by letting them get away wth rape. If anything, rape should be so vigorously prosecuted that those kids learn it's wrong mo matter what.
Prison can incidentally also turn boys into men. That should be on the kids minds. Not protecting them after they rape.
MiniD
__________________
-
That everything maybe easier in black and white,
but the world is made in shades of gray, whether it is convenient for you personally or not.
In other words, it's okay to put women who can do the job into the role that they are the best at. Because they are the best at it.
Generally women don't have the strength needed to do hand to hand combat, but then if there are a few that excel at it, that are built like mammoth and kick some ass..what reason is there to keep them out only because they aren't men.
Makes no sense, it'd be like a judge just throwing the book at everyone who comes in because he'd probably be putting some criminals away but is too lazy to try the cases.
Originally posted by lazs2
I am 53 and can kick the crap out of any woman alive in hand to hand. I don't want them fighting alongside me. (and yes... all those tv shows that have women beating up men are full of toejam and you are a moron for thinking it's possible)
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
that maybe 1 in a million women could defeat a 53 year old man in hand to hand combat so therefore it is ok to put women in combat roles?
lazs
-
kanth... you are taking me out of context... I did not admit that 1 in 1million women could defeat me... I said that even if they could it wouldn't prove your case.
your analodgy about the judge is wrong. First... you have failed to show an example of a woman that can "kick ass" against.... well... the men she would be facing in real combat. No proffesional fight that I know of is not gender specific. I consider combat to be professional fighting. I would say that the risks to the other soldiers are too high to be PC about this.
certainly you are correct in pointing out that mine and your generations have different views but... there is no physical evolutionary change that I know of. I see no evidence of it... to the contrary... I see that the things we believed are born out.. I see no women in tough man competitions or pro football or any real contact sport ... Thjey are all gender specific. whenever we have one of these woman vs man circus events the woman gets slaughtered ....
now... testoserone is the wild card... women body builders take testoserone but ... doctors will tell you that as they become stronger... approch male strength and muscle mass... they become less female. Basicly.... any women that took enough testosterone to compete with men would not be in much danger of rape in any case.... which brings us full circle.
lazs
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Sex against ones will due to a knife to the throat of serious repercussions to career etc is rape in my book.
You're naeive if you define rape as physically forced to put out or physically so restrained intercourse cannot be avoided.
Naeive? right.
Naeive is believing that rape is strictly defined by what one party says about their willingness to participate after the fact.
It is wrong for someone to coerce someone to have sex with them. OK... fine... but its also impossible to prove and its also purely subjective in view. Thus it becomes PC.
You see, it doesn't have to be a "do this or something will happen to you". It could be a classmate that just asked and the woman was afraid that if she said no then something would happen... with no inferance involved. That is what rape has boiled down to. Its not a matter of "she said no, you did" anymore. Its a matter of "she should not have been put in the position to have to decide wether or not to say no".
If you were in the military, you'd understand. Rape by military standards is not a "more liberal" definition than in civilian life... it is more strict. And it is, at times, complete roadkill.
MiniD
-
The quotes I took from you are within context, first you say it's "impossible" and if you don't believe it's impossible, you are a moron, then you say it "is" possible.
So we've gone from impossible (which is a word that means something btw) to possible.
Then you go on to say it's not likely, to which I have agreed. Still you have failed to address:
For what reason should a woman who *can* kick a professional combatants bellybutton be kept from doing so in a combatant situtation??
like I've said before, I believe that if someone isn't good enough for the job, they don't get it. That's my logic.
what's yours?
Originally posted by lazs2
kanth... you are taking me out of context... I did not admit that 1 in 1million women could defeat me... I said that even if they could it wouldn't prove your case.
your analodgy about the judge is wrong. First... you have failed to show an example of a woman that can "kick ass" against.... well... the men she would be facing in real combat. No proffesional fight that I know of is not gender specific. I consider combat to be professional fighting. I would say that the risks to the other soldiers are too high to be PC about this.
certainly you are correct in pointing out that mine and your generations have different views but... there is no physical evolutionary change that I know of. I see no evidence of it... to the contrary... I see that the things we believed are born out.. I see no women in tough man competitions or pro football or any real contact sport ... Thjey are all gender specific. whenever we have one of these woman vs man circus events the woman gets slaughtered ....
now... testoserone is the wild card... women body builders take testoserone but ... doctors will tell you that as they become stronger... approch male strength and muscle mass... they become less female. Basicly.... any women that took enough testosterone to compete with men would not be in much danger of rape in any case.... which brings us full circle.
lazs
-
Hangtime: If Miko thinks he cannot personally educate his daughters on appropriate behavior and defensive/avoidance proceedures, it is the fault of the state sponsored education system.
As usuall, you are claiming a complete opposite to what I really posted. Just read my post again.
I said that I would certainly teach my daughter(s) how to deal with sex and unwanted sexual advances. Never said otherwise. Here it is: "On which I replied "Well, we can raise them in a way that they cannot be taken advantage of no matter what is done to others..." " and "She can try to not to participate in any activities that would give anyone reason to blackmail her...". That's your responcible behavior and everything included right there.
What I do not want to teach my daughters is that our military is an assemblage of corrupted rapists and careerist cowards.
You may believe that since it is "the REAL deal", we should all accept that and teach our children to accept that. That is of course your prerogative. You are certainly free to teach your daughter to put out to a superior or to keep her mouth shut when her friend is raped, or to stay away from the military. After all, that is how our America is working today, and we would not want to change anything...
Mathman: doesn't mean that all the males in the Air Force are rapists...
Certaily not. But it looked like almost all of the males in that academy - as well as the females were covering for those rapists by keeping their mouths shut.
If you go by this logic, you should believe that all men are rapists, murderers, thieves...
Guess what - most of them really would be if their superiors, educators and authorities taught them to be all those despicable things. That is what the administration of teh academy was doing. By not throwing the book on the first rapist it sent a message to everyone that rape is OK.
I would even say that by providing a tool for a rapist to use the senior officers were accomplices. After all, the rapist did so because the victim could not resist in fear of her career. but it would not have been a cadet rapist destroying her career but a superior officers. If one guy is raping a woman and another one is threatening her to stay still, aren't they equally guilty?
miko
-
kanth... I will let everyone read what I wrote and let them decide if you were taking me out of context or not. "even if" is not the same as "possible". In retrospect I suppose that impossible is a tad too strong... I normally try to avoid words like "never" or "impossible". In this case, for all practical purposses tho..
but.. lets say that you can find some miniscule fraction of a percent of women that can compete in hand to hand combat against men.... How would you test? but more importantly.... why would you bother.. in this case generalizing is much more efficient. You would waste a lot of time and resources for something that very few people want and that would be of little or no value other than for PC purposses.
I guess that you are looking at it as an issue... a fairness issue as applies to human rights... I am looking at it from a practical standpoint and a fairness issue as it applies to the men who would be affected.
lazs
-
Okay I am going to weed thru this and try to address some points not to weaken your argument but to point out what I am addressing as I see it.
Originally posted by lazs2
but.. lets say that you can find some miniscule fraction of a percent of women that can compete in hand to hand combat against men.... How would you test?
How do you test men who are going into infantry positions?
but more importantly.... why would you bother.. in this case generalizing is much more efficient. You would waste a lot of time and resources for something that very few people want and that would be of little or no value other than for PC purposses.
See my other post about the judge and the cases, you do bother because there is the possibility for excellence.
The more sweeping generalizations are made, the more value falls through the cracks.
[/B]
I guess that you are looking at it as an issue... a fairness issue as applies to human rights... I am looking at it from a practical standpoint and a fairness issue as it applies to the men who would be affected.
lazs [/B]
As far as a fairness issue goes, as I said, the people who can best do the job should be doing it. I fail to see the unfairness in this for either gender. I think you are coming from a perspective that men belong and women do not and so in order to place a woman into the job is an unfair burden upon the men.
The problem is that men do not belong any more than women do.
I could argue that since men commit most of the violent crimes in america, in order to stop most of the crime we should confine all men.
I'm sure some quick camps could be constructed.
why bother weeding out the ones that have no tendencies towards violence? that's just feel good PC crap isn't it.
Generalizing is efficient you are very correct about that, but when it affects individuals quality of life, the persuit of freedom and happiness, it's wrong.
This country was founded on PC feel good crap.
I would also argue that this is what has made the U.S.A the best place to live on earth.
-
Lazs,
Women should be subject to the same qualification tests as men for the same jobs - which do not necessarily involve hand-to-hand for pilots. Very few would pass but those that do should not be prevented from doing what they can just to save some scum from "temptation".
Otherwise we should shut up about Taliban keeping women home and covered. That was to prevent temptation too.
Believe me, if a man can refuse advances of willing beautifull women if he thinks that sex is not the right thing to do right now, the soldier should be able to resist raping his subordinate.
miko
-
Certaily not. But it looked like almost all of the males in that academy - as well as the females were covering for those rapists by keeping their mouths shut.
So, everyone, even those that may not have known about it or only heard one side was covering up for it?
Let me put forth a scenario for you:
A friend of mine comes up to me and tells me that he had sex with a girl at this party last night. I don't know if he did or didn't, because I wasn't at the party. All I know is what he told me. Lets say that two weeks later, it comes out that he raped the girl and the sex was most definitely not consensual. Does that make me guilty of a cover up if I don't say anything? As far as I knew, before the girl said she was raped, was that my friend and her had sex and it was consensual.
Things aren't always as black and white as you may want them to be.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Certaily not. But it looked like almost all of the males in that academy - as well as the females were covering for those rapists by keeping their mouths shut.
I particularly like "But it looked like..."
Once again Miko, it was 20/20. They show you what they want you to see. If they want it to look like a coverup, they ask questions they know they will not get answers to and present it as if it is a coverup. Then you get to use wonderfull statements like "But it looked like..."
MiniD
-
The military should be and is held to a higher standard than their civilian counterparts. Discipline is very important to the military to ensure it's success. It's success is important to all of us.
The breach of trust that some in the military are guilty of is especially reprehensible for the reason I mentioned as well as it offers an opportunity for those idiots that think we don't need a military to get in their cheap shots.
But anyone that thinks that the problems found in the military aren't mirrored and even multiplied by our society is suffering from self delusion.
-
What I do not want to teach my daughters is that our military is an assemblage of corrupted rapists and careerist cowards.
That line, and the brunt of your post is implying that that is EXACTLY what you think they are.. based on the 20/20 episode.
You flip flop more than a hooked fish in the scuppers. So which is it.. the military is a breeding ground of corrupted rapists and careerist criminals or is it not?
PICK ONE. Either 20/20 is full of toejam or the american military is corrupt and incompetent, miko. Can't have it both ways.
You are certainly free to teach your daughter to put out to a superior or to keep her mouth shut when her friend is raped, or to stay away from the military.
Horseshit again, Miko. I'd teach my daughter to use her head and stay the hell outta situations that could lead to trouble. I'd have her watch that freakin trash piece by 20/20, tell her what I think about 20/20 and let her make up her own gawdamned mind about her carreer and college. The Sex Education bit was handled when she was 12-14, and she's been choosing her own friends and associates since she was old enough to understand right from wrong.
Piety don't smell good on parents, Miko.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020...ions030228.html
So I went and read this, since I missed the show. Many of you know that I just graduated from USAFA last May. And honestly, I have to say this is the biggist pile of horse dung I've ever seen.
The Academy is a pretty close knit place. There are only 4,000 cadets, as opposed to big universities with 40,000 students. I'm not saying you get to know everybody, but when there are only 2 dorm buildings for all 4000 cadets (and you're assigned to a squadron of around 100-120 people, you switch squadrons part way through your time there, so that doubles the number of people that you're required to know at a minimum), you get to know a pretty healthy majority of the people. With that said, I never heard of anything like this. I was just your average Joe Blow cadet, wasn't really affiliated with any specific group or clique (yes, there were plenty and they were quite distinct).
The media is trying to make a lot more of this than what's really there, just like they did with the big drug scandal two years ago. Go ask any other college in the country if they'd be happy having a drug ring on their campus that consisted of a whole whopping 13 people, and they'd say hell yes. I'm not saying that rape is not a problem if it happens in small numbers, so don't try to misquote me there. I'm just saying that the media likes to amplify everything when it's a service academy under the microscope.
If there were any legitimate rapes that took place, that's inexcusable. The guys commiting them should be court martialed and sent on their merry way to Levinworth. But I think the point has been made that PC roadkill has gotten so bad that some of these guys had no reason to think what they were doing could be considered rape, until the girl changed her mind a few days or weeks later.
But now, just to add some fuel to the fire, let's go through the list of things that these people were doing wrong according to the AFCWIs (Air Force Cadet Wing Instructions).
1. Alcohol in the cadet area, especially in the dorms. Completely prohibited no matter how old you are or what rank you hold.
2. Sex in the dorms, consentual or not, also prohibited. Both parties should be punished equally.
3. Freshmen dealing with upperclassmen in anything other than a professional manner, and vice versa. This is fraternization and is considered no different than officers having unprofessional relationships with enlisted. It's wrong on both parties involved, even more so for the upperclassmen who know better. I watched a guy who was about to cross commission into the Army and go into Ranger school lose his slot and get sent to Army intel because it came out that in his last couple of months before graduation he was dating a freshman girl.
Had these cadets been bothered to follow the rules that are in place (for good reason), this would be a non issue. And I apply that to both the accusers and the accused. If these girls think it's unfair that they get disciplinary hits for drinking and having sex in the dorms because they're claiming rape, they're delusional. The rapist will be dealt with accordingly, but in the meantime, the girl still broke many regulations in the first place to lead to that situation. None of these sound like they were spontaneous "grab a total stranger and drag them into a dark alley" kind of rapes. And as for the little bit about the health care people encouraging them to take birth control and giving the old "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" about it being for their inevitable rape.......would it help if I got some female friends of mine from the zoo to come here and tell you what a load that is, or will you just take my word for it?
Flame away. I expect it. But nothing Barbara Walters says is going to make me believe that this toejam is even close to true.
-
kanth.. you and I both know that if there is any testing that it is historical that women will not be tested equally and, if they are... it is only because the standards have been lowered... take for instance firemen. it used to be that they had to carry a 150-200 lb dummy 50 yards 9firemans carry) that requirement was dropped for everyone... the standards were lowered rather than as you say.... "getting excelence'
certainly there are male combatants that are not up to the job for varius reasons... testing is not done (outside of basic)because every one of em is capable... physically and... you need a lot of cannon fodder... you can't poick and choose... but you can generalize for expediancy. It is far better to say..." well... we know that every male who gets through basic has the physical ability to hand to hand but since very few women do it is not worth all the extra testing and hassle and special treatment down the road and problems simply to have a minute fraction of a percent of em in our combat force".
now... you might have a case if you take special forces.. if they can pass the special forces, say, navy seal, ranger, training then... let em fight I guess... I mean look what bad tulips the women were in "alien". Point is...
the more exclusive and small the force the more it is able, and needs to, seperate the wheat from the chafe.
pilots... women should make lousy pilots.. their eyesight is worse than mens and they can't track fast moving objects as well as men. This is fact. it is not automatic tho. If you had an airfordce of several million planes and pilots you would be well served by just forbidding women... training would go faster and smoother.. but... we have lots of time to train so.... give em a shot.. some soviet women did very well in WWII ... problem is... in reality... women are coddled in for PC purpsoses in our AF... somtimes with terrible results. but at the very least... disruptive.
lazs
-
and.... so far as crime and men... you are absolutely correct. women know nothing of crime and therefore... have a poor grasp of what is going on in a criminals mind.. that is one of my key points in ending womens sufferage.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
that requirement was dropped for everyone... the standards were lowered rather than as you say.... "getting excelence'
Lowering the standards has nothing to do with the womans performance laz, it has to do with the administration allowing people who cannot pass the test in. This kind of problem isn't solved by removing the women it's solved by removing the administration.
certainly there are male combatants that are not up to the job for varius reasons... testing is not done (outside of basic)because every one of em is capable... physically and... you need a lot of cannon fodder... you can't poick and choose... but you can generalize for expediancy. It is far better to say..." well... we know that every male who gets through basic has the physical ability to hand to hand but since very few women do it is not worth all the extra testing and hassle and special treatment down the road and problems simply to have a minute fraction of a percent of em in our combat force".
Okay here ya go, if they don't get thru the same basic as the men then like the men who have failed they aren't up to the job..basic doesn't just weed out the frail men, it would weed out the women as well. Also before you enter the military you pick your job and they will measure you to make sure you fit the height and weight requirements (as well as not having any medical conditions) so in fact they do test before basic training.
What I'm saying is that if she can't pass basic, just like the men, there is no hassle further on down the road. people who can't cut it are already weeded out.
now... you might have a case if you take special forces.. if they can pass the special forces, say, navy seal, ranger, training then... let em fight I guess... I mean look what bad tulips the women were in "alien". Point is...
the more exclusive and small the force the more it is able, and needs to, seperate the wheat from the chafe.
the more specialized the training the less people get in, for men and women...btw "alien" was more tv and not real life.
pilots... women should make lousy pilots.. their eyesight is worse than mens and they can't track fast moving objects as well as men. This is fact.
This I'd like you to show me, I don't find this information anywhere on google
it is not automatic tho. If you had an airfordce of several million planes and pilots you would be well served by just forbidding women... training would go faster and smoother.. but... we have lots of time to train so.... give em a shot..
so are you saying that all women learn slower as well?
some soviet women did very well in WWII ...
fact is women in OUR military do very well also, but we'd never have known that if they weren't allowed to try.
problem is... in reality... women are coddled in for PC purpsoses in our AF... somtimes with terrible results. but at the very least... disruptive.
lazs
Problem is, if standards are changed and women are coddled it's not by women who are testing to get the job, it's by the people administering the test. So, if you want to fix the problem, fix those folks.
because as we alrady know, women make excellent pilots.
-
If that is one of your key points, you maybe in trouble.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/women1/1.html
I said that males commit more violent crimes than women, not that women know nothing of crime. Or I would have said that violent crimes would be wiped out by locking men in camps.
but that is not the case.
I'm sure some of this is on tv as well, for your review.
The fact is, criminals and the people who deal with them know more about crime than non-criminals. Also not gender exclusive.
Originally posted by lazs2
and.... so far as crime and men... you are absolutely correct. women know nothing of crime and therefore... have a poor grasp of what is going on in a criminals mind.. that is one of my key points in ending womens sufferage.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Kanth
I said that males commit more violent crimes than women, not that women know nothing of crime. Or I would have said that violent crimes would be wiped out by locking men in camps.
Come on Kanth, I know this is something that all women would like to do, maybe an occasional temporary release for...uh...good behavior.
;)
-
I think you know way more about women than I do :D
Originally posted by AKIron
Come on Kanth, I know this is something that all women would like to do, maybe an occasional temporary release for...uh...good behavior.
;)
-
Originally posted by Kanth
I think you know way more about women than I do :D
Well...maybe it's just me that all women would like locked up. ;)
and Lazs
-
kanth.. i think the problem here is that you are dealing with what should be and I am dealing with what actually is.
in every situation, be it police, fire or military... where women are now allowed to participate and were not before... the standards have been lowered. these groups have become less not more... the contribution of the women is... to have a less capable force. I won't argue that it is possible to find a small fraction of a percent of women capable of filling those roles..... only that it is not worth the effort on the one hand and that it invariably lowers the standards on the other.
as too the article you point out... it shows that some women are capable of crime. It fails to get around the fact that it is still a tiny fraction of a percent of the violent crimes committed by males... rape alone... assualt..
so far as boot camp.. just getting through boot camp does not mean that you have the upper body strength to take on a male opponent. it simply weeds out the worst... women can make it through boot and not have the upper body strength needed. Allmost all the men will tho. And.... I don't think anyone here will disagree that boot itself has become less strenuous with much lower physical standards. I am sure that much of that can be blamed on the expanded role of women in the military.
lazs
-
iron... there might be a few but... not ones who know me. I have allways treated women fairly well. I don't treat them equally since that would be rediculous and unfair to both of us. I have hit a whole lot of men in my time but no women. Women have probly given me more reason. Also... women have never had any compunction about hitting me that i can recall.
I fear that they will vote me in jail tho. Their votes allmost invariably tend to outlaw any activity that I might enjoy and allways for the same reason... for my own good. I can't think of anything where my vote has been the same as the womans vote (majority of women) so.... as a purely selfish thing, ending womens sufferage would only be a good thing for me. And since I am so rarely wrong about anything.... It would obviously be good for the country too. What more proof does anyone need?
lazs
-
I try not to use some words
including:
all, never, always
perhaps you and lazs should hang out and bond or something :)
Originally posted by AKIron
Well...maybe it's just me that all women would like locked up. ;)
and Lazs
-
Good thing I kept my day job. :D
-
kanth.. if either you or iron are ever in my area... email me and we will hook up. I am an equal opportunity bonder.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
kanth.. i think the problem here is that you are dealing with what should be and I am dealing with what actually is.
I think you've got that backwards. Women are in the military, able to vote and fighting fires.
in every situation, be it police, fire or military... where women are now allowed to participate and were not before... the standards have been lowered. these groups have become less not more... the contribution of the women is... to have a less capable force.
In any case that standards have been lowered for any reason it has not been by the women who are in these positions. If they want the standards raised, they should raise them.
I won't argue that it is possible to find a small fraction of a percent of women capable of filling those roles..... only that it is not worth the effort on the one hand and that it invariably lowers the standards on the other.
and I'll still argue that the weeding outprocess takes care of both males and females that cannot cut the mustard with no extra effort.
as too the article you point out... it shows that some women are capable of crime. It fails to get around the fact that it is still a tiny fraction of a percent of the violent crimes committed by males... rape alone... assualt..
I had already said that it's majorily males committing the violent crimes. You said women know "nothing" of crime (not even specifying violent crimes)
you are completely wrong.
so far as boot camp.. just getting through boot camp does not mean that you have the upper body strength to take on a male opponent. it simply weeds out the worst... women can make it through boot and not have the upper body strength needed. Allmost all the men will tho.
If you cannot pass your tests including physical you flunk out, male and female alike.
And.... I don't think anyone here will disagree that boot itself has become less strenuous with much lower physical standards. I am sure that much of that can be blamed on the expanded role of women in the military.
lazs
If standards again have been dropped it can be blamed on the people who are dropping the standards.
Once again it's they who must raise them up and if people can't pass they fail....it's very simple.
-
Maybe the next con Lazs, only slight chance I may go tho.
-
now yer just getting silly. :p
Originally posted by lazs2
iron... there might be a few but... not ones who know me. I have allways treated women fairly well. I don't treat them equally since that would be rediculous and unfair to both of us.
And since I am so rarely wrong about anything.... It would obviously be good for the country too. What more proof does anyone need?
lazs
-
to be honest lazs, I don't think I would have the patience for you in person. Fighting thru a bunch of beliefs that have nothing to do with who *I* am in particular in public is something I get to do on a daily basis so it definately doesn't appeal to me in private.
Originally posted by lazs2
kanth.. if either you or iron are ever in my area... email me and we will hook up. I am an equal opportunity bonder.
lazs
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
So I went and read this, since I missed the show. Many of you know that I just graduated from USAFA last May. And honestly, I have to say this is the biggist pile of horse dung I've ever seen.
The Academy is a pretty close knit place. There are only 4,000 cadets, as opposed to big universities with 40,000 students. I'm not saying you get to know everybody, but when there are only 2 dorm buildings for all 4000 cadets (and you're assigned to a squadron of around 100-120 people, you switch squadrons part way through your time there, so that doubles the number of people that you're required to know at a minimum), you get to know a pretty healthy majority of the people. With that said, I never heard of anything like this. I was just your average Joe Blow cadet, wasn't really affiliated with any specific group or clique (yes, there were plenty and they were quite distinct).
The media is trying to make a lot more of this than what's really there, just like they did with the big drug scandal two years ago. Go ask any other college in the country if they'd be happy having a drug ring on their campus that consisted of a whole whopping 13 people, and they'd say hell yes. I'm not saying that rape is not a problem if it happens in small numbers, so don't try to misquote me there. I'm just saying that the media likes to amplify everything when it's a service academy under the microscope.
If there were any legitimate rapes that took place, that's inexcusable. The guys commiting them should be court martialed and sent on their merry way to Levinworth. But I think the point has been made that PC roadkill has gotten so bad that some of these guys had no reason to think what they were doing could be considered rape, until the girl changed her mind a few days or weeks later.
But now, just to add some fuel to the fire, let's go through the list of things that these people were doing wrong according to the AFCWIs (Air Force Cadet Wing Instructions).
1. Alcohol in the cadet area, especially in the dorms. Completely prohibited no matter how old you are or what rank you hold.
2. Sex in the dorms, consentual or not, also prohibited. Both parties should be punished equally.
3. Freshmen dealing with upperclassmen in anything other than a professional manner, and vice versa. This is fraternization and is considered no different than officers having unprofessional relationships with enlisted. It's wrong on both parties involved, even more so for the upperclassmen who know better. I watched a guy who was about to cross commission into the Army and go into Ranger school lose his slot and get sent to Army intel because it came out that in his last couple of months before graduation he was dating a freshman girl.
Had these cadets been bothered to follow the rules that are in place (for good reason), this would be a non issue. And I apply that to both the accusers and the accused. If these girls think it's unfair that they get disciplinary hits for drinking and having sex in the dorms because they're claiming rape, they're delusional. The rapist will be dealt with accordingly, but in the meantime, the girl still broke many regulations in the first place to lead to that situation. None of these sound like they were spontaneous "grab a total stranger and drag them into a dark alley" kind of rapes. And as for the little bit about the health care people encouraging them to take birth control and giving the old "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" about it being for their inevitable rape.......would it help if I got some female friends of mine from the zoo to come here and tell you what a load that is, or will you just take my word for it?
Flame away. I expect it. But nothing Barbara Walters says is going to make me believe that this toejam is even close to true.
I didn't want this reply to the original subject to get lost in the new battle of the sexes subject.
Its an excellent post from someone who had more insite to the situation than any of us.
MiniD
-
It is wrong for someone to coerce someone to have sex with them. OK... fine... but its also impossible to prove and its also purely subjective in view. Thus it becomes PC.
Not impossible and it has been proven time and again.
Look up Quid Pro Quo.
Still waiting for Lazs' proof that women have poorer eyesight and tracking ability. I tend to think they may be just the opposite.
(Oh my god, did I just admit that there are differences??? :eek: )
-
so typical :D
Originally posted by midnight Target
(Oh my god, did I just admit that there are differences??? :eek: )
-
You have to prove this was offered for that. Most companies have policies in place (as well as the military) against even consentual sex between two individuals where a "quid pro quo" situation could occur simply because the accusations are impossible to prove/disprove without physical evidence.
MiniD
-
"to be honest lazs, I don't think I would have the patience for you in person. Fighting thru a bunch of beliefs that have nothing to do with who *I* am in particular in public is something I get to do on a daily basis so it definately doesn't appeal to me in private."
oh? are you a crusader or martyr? or are you simply persecuted? The best way to combat prejudice is on a personal basis I have found. Sometimes feeling persecuted is.... well... look at weazel and beware.
MT.. I rarely watch TV but the discovery channel had a show on the sexes and was talking about the differences myth and fact. the reason they gave for men having better vision and being able to track fast moving objects better was that the men were the hunters and it was a neede skill... as for other differences... they are all mostly hormonal according to the show and... the way the brain is organized... the communication between the brain halves. Men and women are very different in both physical and mental. the show was facinating.. It showed how even small children behave differently between the sexes on how they handle problems and how they play and.... violence.
The standards have been lowered in places they shouldn't be. firefighters and police. This is fact and women had everything to do with it starting with voting and ending with affirmative action which actually were more for white women than minorities. The exception is probly the height requirement for cops in SF (for instance) that was an asian thing.
When you mandate that a certain percentage of the workforce be women and it is a job best done by men... the easy way out is to lower the standards... that is what was done and is still being done... that is the "reality" of the situation. Probly you could find a few women to fill the roles legitimately but... not in the timeframe demanded by affirmative action and... not in the numbers required by such programs...
am writing this after watching the new group of recruits for the sheriffs dept out "qualifying' on the range next to my office... the 5'4" 230 lb female "officer" is waddling over to here unmolested target in hopes of finding a hole somewhere in it... To qualify for the shotgun the instrutor was bracing her up with his arm. Sure... kanth... you fight mean of prejudice every day but the rest of us live woith the results of affirmative action. Oh... in order to get her into the sherrifs the male recruits are no great shakes either. Out on my walk I pass most of the fat slobs who are "running the course".... I try to get way ahead so that I won't see em keel over and feel obligated to give CPR.
reality? I don't think you would recognize reality if all 5'4" and 230 lbs sat on you. If you are going to argue that affirmative action for women had nothing to do with the lowering of standards then you are not going to be taken very seriously by anyone with even moderate powers of observation.
lazs
-
and MT... If you were honest you would admit that those that are most adamant about there being "no differences" between the sexes or the races mean that... only differences that make minories and women superior are accepted as differences.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and MT... If you were honest you would admit that those that are most adamant about there being "no differences" between the sexes or the races mean that... only differences that make minories and women superior are accepted as differences.
lazs
There are definite differences between men and women.. thank God. What you may have missed while looking through your myopic glasses is that the testing may have been changed without reducing the safety of the public. Isn't it possible that some of those tests were biased in order to prevent women from holding the job? Of course it is.
Differences between the races IMHO are much more a result of culture than of genetics. But assuming that genetic differences exist, we should still make every effort to treat all humans equally.
-
none of the above, but thanks for the attempt at labeling. I'd be just lost without one.
Originally posted by lazs2
oh? are you a crusader or martyr? or are you simply persecuted? The best way to combat prejudice is on a personal basis I have found. Sometimes feeling persecuted is.... well... look at weazel and beware.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
reality? I don't think you would recognize reality if all 5'4" and 230 lbs sat on you. If you are going to argue that affirmative action for women had nothing to do with the lowering of standards then you are not going to be taken very seriously by anyone with even moderate powers of observation.
lazs
I'm against affirmative action, and lowering of standards lazs, I don't feel either of them are needed.
And I feel that qualified people should get the job.
pretty simple.
I also don't blame people trying to join the military for military standards, people trying to join the firedept for their standards. I think you are looking at the wrong end of the totem pole.
I'll tell you what, if a law was passed allowing people to drive on your front lawn, instead of taking pot shots at the people driving thru (because people always will) you would be better served to go get the law fixed.
this crystalizes the difference between your and my thinking.
-
kanth... of course I would work to get the law fixed but I would also take every opportunity to point out how silly the law was in the first place. your analodgy has the crystal clear consistancy of mud. And I do work to change laws... Would you like to serve at my "end womens sufferage" booth at the Wall-mart parking lot? Next sunday ok?
mt... you aren't looking very hard. the standards are lowered and they hurt the sevices. The reason they wanted firefighters to be able to carry people sized burdens was well... they may be required to carry people to safety... The situation still exists but the solution is being affirmative actioned away. Hand to hand combat is still a very real prospect in the service. simply saying that strength rules are nothing but thinly vieled white male devil tricks and serve no purpose isn't good enough.
kanth I obviously don't know yur personal situation but I have allways found it stimulating to talk to people with opinions that differ from mine. That is why I asked if you were some sort of crusader or proffesional martyr.... most of us don't get so weary of talking to people who may have differing opinions.
lazs
-
I saw one of those guys, talking to himself on the street the other day...
I talked to him for 6 hours.
It was stimulating.
Originally posted by lazs2
kanth I obviously don't know yur personal situation but I have allways found it stimulating to talk to people with opinions that differ from mine. That is why I asked if you were some sort of crusader or proffesional martyr.... most of us don't get so weary of talking to people who may have differing opinions.
lazs
-
Minneapolis Fire Chief Rocco Forte, for example, says he made diversifying his department a priority when he took command. Chief Forte created a cultural committee to identify organization barriers blocking women from joining and started a 12-week training program to prepare women for the obstacle- course test.
Now, the passing score is based on the average fitness exam administered to all firefighters each year, so no one can complain that new recruits are lowering standards.
I guess one of us isn't looking hard enough.
-
kanth... unlike you... I don't assume that anyone who disagrees with me is a babbling idiot (although you may find more homeless loonies that agree with you than me)... I beleive that despite being knee jerk... you and mt are pretty bright for instance. I am allways a little baffled by the arrogance of people who hold the "progressive" view.
mt... an "average" of physical abilities can and probably is... indeed be a lowering of standards. firefighters should be well above average in physical abilities (especially early in their careers) if, you lower the recruitment so that the weaker sex is allowed to participate (thus lowering the average even more) then you have really kicked the guts out of the proccess. Those who hold life and death jobs shouldn't be graded on a curve.
I don't think either of you advocate women coed with men in professional or even school football or that we have no gender rules in boxing.
but then maybe I am just old fashioned or... maybe evolution made some strides that I have missed in the last couple of decades.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
kanth... unlike you... I don't assume
don't begin to think you know me.
I don't think either of you advocate women coed with men in professional or even school football or that we have no gender rules in boxing.
lazs
that would mean we don't advocate anything we haven't talked about yet.
and if not, you could always assume.
-
kanth... i don't know you... I am taking you at your word. I do that with most people until I find out otherwise. you are the one who claimed that finding people who disagree with you meant talking with the homeless loonies. I have found that most of the drug addicts are "progressive" leaning... or were before they lost the ability to communicate. You simply need to catch them before they slip into incoherance (relatively).
Ok... I'll bite... do you believe that boxing, football and other violent sports should not be gender specific and, if not... how can you not agree that combat troops should be gender specific?
lazs
-
and mt.. if I didn't make myself clear... think of it this way... there is no dearth of candidates for firefighter positions. The testing can and should be very tough. When it is your loved one that can't be rescued because the woman who met "average" recruitment standard couldn't carry out the victim or drag that extra 100 ft of hose or use the battering ram or axe or carry all of her equipment and a chain saw up a ladder and then hack through a roof... well... feel good liberalism doesn't count for much then... Especially when you know that 100's of qualified applicants who coulda done the job were turned down in order to get some "diversity". firefighter is not an ornamental position.
lazs