Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

KomradeBishop, what in your opinion is a radical feminist viewpoint/policy?

The ones who are anti-porn/sexworker/trans tend to be fairly radical, and ones who are particularly nutty, like advocating violence against men or similar nonsense.
More generally, probably those who view feminism as inherently opposed to men - which, despite the endless straw-manning by anti-feminists, doesn't seem to be the case with the feminist movement overall.

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

That's got nothing to to with having tokens in a fire department. Do you agree that standards should not be lowered because it suits gender quotas?

It really depends on a case-by-case basis. If you gather evidence and do a study, showing that the results of the firefighting is significantly harmed in a way that can't be corrected, without removing the quota, then you might have a case.

Good luck showing that to be the case though - it should be rather obvious from the outset of implementation if it was.

The idea of quota's 'lowering standards', usually fall back to speculative comments about generalized differences between genders - not on actual evidence gained from a 'before and after' analysis of the policy being implemented.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You haven't established that she is doing that...yes, you're making up a conspiracy theory, that the word is being redefined, explicitly so other groups can't use it.

She's re-defining the word so that men who experience gender discrimination cannot use it.
She's attempting to over-write the meaning of the word, as are other feminists.
I've seen it on this site and elsewhere.
A man claims he's been the victim of sexism and someone says you can't be sexist against men.
Do you honestly believe that the intention is entirely benign, in creating your own definition for a word and that already has a well established definition.
And then just using this sole definition in discussions?

I'll ask the question again.
Do you believe saying "There’s no such thing as sexism against men" helps or hurts men?

She links it right here:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Afemfreq%20since%3A2014-11-13%20until%3A2014-11-16&src=typd&lang=all

Have you been reading anything posted on this? Any of it?

Again where in that list of articles is it said.
I want a direct link to an article specifically written by her.

You're either not reading what is being said, or you're engaging in selective blindness here - i.e. are deliberately ignoring what is being said - because no matter what definition of sexism is used, no definition denies gender discrimination against men.

The only two definitions of sexism in this debate:
1: The dictionary definition. Explicitly acknowledges gender discrimination.
2: The 'Prejudice + Power' definition. Also acknowledges gender discrimination, including against men.


If you can't even get that right, then I'm going to assume you're deliberately trying to straw-man her - and am not going to waste time on the rest of your post.

Now you're straw manning.
I've never claimed that she isn't acknowledging gender discrimination against men.
I'm saying that she is trying to create a hierarchy where discrimination against women is seen as more important.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

She's re-defining the word so that men who experience gender discrimination cannot use it.

Have you got any proof that this is her intention, or do you just happen to be a psychic/mindreader?

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Have you got any proof that this is her intention, or do you just happen to be a psychic/mindreader?

By the fact that she is re-defining an established word so that men can't use it.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

By the fact that she is re-defining an established word so that men can't use it.

You mean using a different definition - not forcing others to.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It really depends on a case-by-case basis. If you gather evidence and do a study, showing that the results of the firefighting is significantly harmed in a way that can't be corrected, without removing the quota, then you might have a case.

Good luck showing that to be the case though - it should be rather obvious from the outset of implementation if it was.

The idea of quota's 'lowering standards', usually fall back to speculative comments about generalized differences between genders - not on actual evidence gained from a 'before and after' analysis of the policy being implemented.

its ideology pure and simple. The organisation knows best who to recruit, they should be left to it. I dont know anything about firefighting but It doesnt take much to figure out that a certain fitness standard is a minimum requirement on the assumption that you will have to carry heavy hoses up stairs, break doors down, carry an injured colleague or victim out of a building. Women were able to make the grade before quotas but not enough to keep the ideologues happy and now their efforts are being undermined by the introduction of tokens. Also the quota has discriminated against the men that the FD would have hired so in principle its wrong with or without studies.

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

its ideology pure and simple. The organisation knows best who to recruit, they should be left to it. I dont know anything about firefighting but It doesnt take much to figure out that a certain fitness standard is a minimum requirement on the assumption that you will have to carry heavy hoses up stairs, break doors down, carry an injured colleague or victim out of a building. Women were able to make the grade before quotas but not enough to keep the ideologues happy and now their efforts are being undermined by the introduction of tokens. Also the quota has discriminated against the men that the FD would have hired so in principle its wrong with or without studies.

Everything is based on one ideology or another. Including the idea that the organization should be left to recruit who they like.

So your arguments about firefighters are based on assumptions, not data.

The entire idea of the quota's is to address the discrimination against women in whatever profession it's aimed at - which automatically implies that there is (institutionally) positive discrimination in favour of men, without the quota.

This is something that is inherently impossible to actually quantify, as it ties into so many different things that can be biased against a gender, throughout every area of the economy/society:
From societal attitudes/expectations, education, finances, etc. etc. - so it's inherently impossible to quantify this discrimination, yet it definitely does exist.

This would mean that discrimination with both genders - both for and against, manifested in loads of different ways - throughout society, will have affected employees by the time they get to a job; and in addition to that, there'll be ways discrimination (again both for and against) occurs within business too.

So, pretty much all of society/business/etc. is tainted by this - businesses aren't automatically in a pristine condition, free from the effects of discrimination - thus adding in discrimination like quota's, isn't automatically 'wrong', it's just a way of tipping the balance, to try and correct/counterbalance other existing discrimination.

I still don't know whether I agree with quota's though - my understanding of all this is developing as I discuss it.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You mean using a different definition - not forcing others to.

No, I mean re-defining it.
If she started what she said with "My definition of the word is" you'd have a point, but she didn't.
She clearly stated "There's no such thing as sexism against men".
And then went on to clearly define that sexism is "prejudice + power".

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No, I mean re-defining it.
If she started what she said with "My definition of the word is" you'd have a point, but she didn't.
She clearly stated "There's no such thing as sexism against men".
And then went on to clearly define that sexism is "prejudice + power".

Nowhere did she force this definition on others - such that men can't use the word.

Repeating this further at this point, would just be redundant as it's been covered 4-5 times now already.

looksee

On the whole business of quotas, there is an important point that such as the NY fire department appear to be missing. If you had 100 men and 100 women and asked the two groups, how many of you would like to join the fire department, it would seem very likely that a good deal more men than women would want to join. Changing standards or introducing quotas is stupid in this case.

If a certain level of fitness is deemed essential then it should be open to women who can achieve that level, otherwise let the men (who can achieve the level) get on with it. Would anyone argue 'oh its not fair to men who are under a certain height/ weigh/ fitness, they can't be in the fire department'.

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Everything is based on one ideology or another. Including the idea that the organization should be left to recruit who they like.

So your arguments about firefighters are based on assumptions, not data.

The entire idea of the quota's is to address the discrimination against women in whatever profession it's aimed at - which automatically implies that there is (institutionally) positive discrimination in favour of men, without the quota.

This is something that is inherently impossible to actually quantify, as it ties into so many different things that can be biased against a gender, throughout every area of the economy/society:
From societal attitudes/expectations, education, finances, etc. etc. - so it's inherently impossible to quantify this discrimination, yet it definitely does exist.

This would mean that discrimination with both genders - both for and against, manifested in loads of different ways - throughout society, will have affected employees by the time they get to a job; and in addition to that, there'll be ways discrimination (again both for and against) occurs within business too.

So, pretty much all of society/business/etc. is tainted by this - businesses aren't automatically in a pristine condition, free from the effects of discrimination - thus adding in discrimination like quota's, isn't automatically 'wrong', it's just a way of tipping the balance, to try and correct/counterbalance other existing discrimination.

I still don't know whether I agree with quota's though - my understanding of all this is developing as I discuss it.

claiming discrimination is like trying to have an argument with fog. Certain jobs suit men and women differently, are women discriminated against in fishing or construction work or do men and women pursue jobs at varying rates? looksee's observation is correct there are plenty of jobs that are attractive (they dont have to be the highest paying) but there are groups of guys in this case that would jump at the idea of being firemen or police ,army etc. they normally get several times the applications of jobs available but more importantly the interest is not there from women. Also If we take something like the Fire brigade or Army there is no overriding reason to have a female firefighter or soldier. With police , there is an argument that some police ought to be women but otherwise it should be competitive and the standards shouldnt drop to increase the number of female police because the quality of policing will fall.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Nowhere did she force this definition on others - such that men can't use the word..

A) I never said that she forced this definition on others.
She doesn't have to, all it takes it for enough people to use the definition.
So that when a man uses the word sexism, he is challenged on it's use.

JPNelsforearm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Everything is based on one ideology or another. Including the idea that the organization should be left to recruit who they like.

So your arguments about firefighters are based on assumptions, not data.

The entire idea of the quota's is to address the discrimination against women in whatever profession it's aimed at - which automatically implies that there is (institutionally) positive discrimination in favour of men, without the quota.

This is something that is inherently impossible to actually quantify, as it ties into so many different things that can be biased against a gender, throughout every area of the economy/society:
From societal attitudes/expectations, education, finances, etc. etc. - so it's inherently impossible to quantify this discrimination, yet it definitely does exist.

This would mean that discrimination with both genders - both for and against, manifested in loads of different ways - throughout society, will have affected employees by the time they get to a job; and in addition to that, there'll be ways discrimination (again both for and against) occurs within business too.

So, pretty much all of society/business/etc. is tainted by this - businesses aren't automatically in a pristine condition, free from the effects of discrimination - thus adding in discrimination like quota's, isn't automatically 'wrong', it's just a way of tipping the balance, to try and correct/counterbalance other existing discrimination.

I still don't know whether I agree with quota's though - my understanding of all this is developing as I discuss it.

No to all of the bolded, physical standards are the minimum standard expected, the majority of firemen, military etc, would surpass them easily. With quotas you are putting women who cannot pass the minimum physical requirements into a taxing and dangerous job, which the minimum standards are supposed to weed out the unfit, for their and their teams own safety.
All that cultural marxist nonsense about gender discrimination, socio economic status, expectations etc doesnt even come into play, if you cannot pass the minimum physical standard, that is down to your biology and attitude.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/

The FDNY for the first time in its history will allow someone who failed its crucial physical fitness test to join the Bravest, The Post has learned.

Rebecca Wax, 33, is set to graduate Tuesday from the Fire Academy without passing the Functional Skills Training test, a grueling obstacle course of job-related tasks performed in full gear with a limited air supply, an insider has revealed.

“They’re going to allow the first person to graduate without passing because this administration has lowered the standard,” said the insider, who is familiar with the training.

Upon graduation, Wax would be assigned to a firehouse and tasked with the full duties of a firefighter.

http://nypost.com/2015/11/08/fdny-recruit-finally-graduates-thanks-to-instructors-help/

Choeurlyne Doirin-Holder, 39, never achieved a passing score of 17 minutes and 50 seconds on the Functional Skills Test, a course of job-related tasks in full gear such as stretching hoses and dragging dummies, according to an FDNY source familiar with the training. She did not come in under 24 minutes in practice tests.

Doirin-Holder also failed to run the required 1.5 miles in 12 minutes or less — even after the running course was slashed by an estimated quarter-mile, the source said, alleging that the start and finish lines were moved to shorten the run.

The FDNY has come ­under fire for its lack of ­female firefighters, who now number 49 — less than half of 1 percent of the 10,500-person force.

Doirin-Holder, a former city EMT, is one of 282 court-ordered “priority hires” who Brooklyn federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis ordered must get preference because of past discrimination against minorities.
After dropping out of her second attempt in 2014 because of an injury, the FDNY gave the mom-of-two a desk job at full firefighter pay and benefits. She was paid $81,376 including overtime last year.

http://nypost.com/2015/11/22/struggling-firefighter-injured-after-just-10-days-into-new-job/

A firefighter who was allowed to graduate the Fire Academy despite failing physical tests has already gone out on medical leave — just 10 days into the job, The Post has learned.

Probationary firefighter Choeurlyne Doirin-Holder injured herself Monday while conducting a routine check of equipment at Queens’ Engine 308 in South Richmond Hill. Getting off the truck, Doirin-Holder missed a step and landed on her left foot, suffering a fracture, sources said.

It was her second shift after a transfer from Engine 301. In training for a hazmat assignment, officers found her struggling to perform the required tasks.

Firefighters called the tripping incident embarrassing — and alarming.

“If you’re going to get hurt in the firehouse checking a rig, what would happen at a fire?” an insider asked.

The minimum standards are there for safety, if you cannot pass them you have no business being in that line of work, and even at that, in Ireland all of the physical standards have been lowered to increase "gender diversity"
Look at the army and Garda minimum requirements, a complete joke to start with, the standards are a piece of piss. but even at that, they had to lower them as barely any women could pass them. Essentially, they are turning what should be serious professions, into "make work". Its neither hyperbolic nor hysterical to say lives are being put at risk due to physical incompetents being hired in professions where lack of physical ability can result in death or serious injury.

http://www.military.ie/careers/fitness-testing-centre/defence-forces-fitness-tests/

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=12379&Lang=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXo3roYoCUw

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

claiming discrimination is like trying to have an argument with fog. Certain jobs suit men and women differently, are women discriminated against in fishing or construction work or do men and women pursue jobs at varying rates? looksee's observation is correct there are plenty of jobs that are attractive (they dont have to be the highest paying) but there are groups of guys in this case that would jump at the idea of being firemen or police ,army etc. they normally get several times the applications of jobs available but more importantly the interest is not there from women. Also If we take something like the Fire brigade or Army there is no overriding reason to have a female firefighter or soldier. With police , there is an argument that some police ought to be women but otherwise it should be competitive and the standards shouldnt drop to increase the number of female police because the quality of policing will fall.

Again, you're assuming there is a position of no discrimination in the first place - that not doing anything is the 'natural' state of order - as my previous post explained, it's not as clear cut as that.

You are also claiming that standards/quality are being 'lowered' - well, show some stats that prove the negative impact then? Without that, your argument has no backing - it's based on an assumption.

We're just retreading the same arguments in different words here - I've already covered most of this in the very post you're replying to, it's a bit tedious having to repeat myself - I've already shown you don't have any backing for the above arguments.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

A) I never said that she forced this definition on others.
She doesn't have to, all it takes it for enough people to use the definition.
So that when a man uses the word sexism, he is challenged on it's use.

So she's not forcing the definition on anyone, and there is pretty much zero chance of the definition she used, becoming mainstream - you've got no valid criticism against her, all that can be said is she used a different definition of the word, and does not stop anybody using the regular dictionary definition.

You have no evidence whatsoever, showing that she challenges men using the gender discrimination definition of that word - none - all you have, is an example of her using the 'Prejudice + Power' definition.

You're continually weakening your argument now - now reducing it down to 'challenging' mens use of the word - and you have no backing for that either, so I'm not even going to allow you to get away with that more minor misrepresentation.

KomradeBishop

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No to all of the bolded, physical standards are the minimum standard expected, the majority of firemen, military etc, would surpass them easily. With quotas you are putting women who cannot pass the minimum physical requirements into a taxing and dangerous job, which the minimum standards are supposed to weed out the unfit, for their and their teams own safety.
All that cultural marxist nonsense about gender discrimination, socio economic status, expectations etc doesnt even come into play, if you cannot pass the minimum physical standard, that is down to your biology and attitude.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/

http://nypost.com/2015/11/08/fdny-recruit-finally-graduates-thanks-to-instructors-help/


http://nypost.com/2015/11/22/struggling-firefighter-injured-after-just-10-days-into-new-job/



The minimum standards are there for safety, if you cannot pass them you have no business being in that line of work, and even at that, in Ireland all of the physical standards have been lowered to increase "gender diversity"
Look at the army and Garda minimum requirements, a complete joke to start with, the standards are a piece of piss. but even at that, they had to lower them as barely any women could pass them. Essentially, they are turning what should be serious professions, into "make work". Its neither hyperbolic nor hysterical to say lives are being put at risk due to physical incompetents being hired in professions where lack of physical ability can result in death or serious injury.

http://www.military.ie/careers/fitness-testing-centre/defence-forces-fitness-tests/

Nice one - the only evidence you have of this negatively affecting firefighters on the job, is someone falling off a step at the fire station, and fracturing their foot - nice.

If you want to back your argument properly, you need stats showing firefighters actual effectiveness on the job being harmed, and harmed to such a degree that it can't easily be fixed/ameliorated without removing quota's - if someone falling at the garage and hurting their foot, is the only ready evidence you can find, then that's suggestive of a lack of evidence supporting your argument.

Lets have stats on actual deaths or harm due to 'lowered standards', actual screwups on the job due to lesser physical strength/fitness etc., actual failure to perform the job (something a bit more severe and harmful than hurting your foot...) due to lax physical standards.


You'll always notice in debates like this, people will always make really silly/exaggerated gender-based assumptions about the negative impact on a profession - and they'll almost always never break out some actual stats.

JPNelsforearm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Nice one - the only evidence you have of this negatively affecting firefighters on the job, is someone falling off a step at the fire station, and fracturing their foot - nice.

If you want to back your argument properly, you need stats showing firefighters actual effectiveness on the job being harmed, and harmed to such a degree that it can't easily be fixed/ameliorated without removing quota's - if someone falling at the garage and hurting their foot, is the only ready evidence you can find, then that's suggestive of a lack of evidence supporting your argument.

Lets have stats on actual deaths or harm due to 'lowered standards', actual screwups on the job due to lesser physical strength/fitness etc., actual failure to perform the job (something a bit more severe and harmful than hurting your foot...) due to lax physical standards.


You'll always notice in debates like this, people will always make really silly/exaggerated gender-based assumptions about the negative impact on a profession - and they'll almost always never break out some actual stats.

LOL, why have standards in the first place? You clearly dont understand the point of physical fitness tests. They are meant to replicate the physical minimum you need to be able to do, eg, its a test of what you will at minimum face in the job on a daily basis. You dont need "data", the standards were introduced historically as the minimum required for you to manage the everyday tasks. The data is in the failure rate of the physical fitness tests. We went from a situation where every female failed alongside a lot of men. To one with a separate test, so men with a better score than women are being rejected, does that make sense?

"Gender based assumptions" what planet are you living on? Its nothing to do with gender, you can pass the test or you cant, end of story.


Here you go anyway, the largest experiment as regards gender in a physically demanding job. A waste of time and money for all concerned, biology trumps all the will and mental toughness in the world. Women cannot outperform their biological limits. Which the initial fitness minimum and training told us anyway.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/

All-male ground combat teams outperformed their mixed-gender counterparts in nearly every capacity during a recent infantry integration test, Marine Corps officials revealed Thursday.

In 2013, the US military lifted its ban on women serving in combat. Shortly after, the Marine Corps began what it calls an “unprecedented research effort” to understand the impact of gender integration on its combat forces. That took the form of a year-long experiment called the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, in which 400 Marines—100 of them female—trained for combat together and then undertook a simulated deployment, with every facet of their experience measured and scrutinized.

Data collected during a monthslong experiment showed Marine teams with female members performed at lower overall levels, completed tasks more slowly and fired weapons with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts. In addition, female Marines sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance capacity overall, officials said.

The troubling findings come as Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford prepares to make a crucial decision regarding the integration of female troops into closed combat roles. Faced with a Defense Department-wide mandate that will open all jobs to women by Jan. 1, he must decide whether to ask for specific exceptions to the mandate in order to preserve combat readiness. Officials said Dunford had met with Navy Secretary Ray Mabus about the decision but had yet to issue his recommendations.

The report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” On “lethality,” the report says:
All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.
And:
All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.
And:
1
All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)

The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

KomradeBishop

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

LOL, why have standards in the first place? You clearly dont understand the point of physical fitness tests. They are meant to replicate the physical minimum you need to be able to do, eg, its a test of what you will at minimum face in the job on a daily basis. You dont need "data", the standards were introduced historically as the minimum required for you to manage the everyday tasks. The data is in the failure rate of the physical fitness tests. We went from a situation where every female failed alongside a lot of men. To one with a separate test, so men with a better score than women are being rejected, does that make sense?

"Gender based assumptions" what planet are you living on? Its nothing to do with gender, you can pass the test or you cant, end of story.


Here you go anyway, the largest experiment as regards gender in a physically demanding job. A waste of time and money for all concerned, biology trumps all the will and mental toughness in the world. Women cannot outperform their biological limits. Which the initial fitness minimum and training told us anyway.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/

You might as well be quoting a study of 'on average more-trained vs on average less-trained' people:

While the experiment was closely controlled, there was a key experience gap: Many male task force volunteers came from combat units where they had previously served, while female volunteers came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.

That's an immediate and fatal flaw in the study. Apart from that: When exactly did discussion of gender quota's become restricted to physically demanding jobs either?

The vast majority of jobs out there don't have any such restrictions - so you're doing your very best to try and cherry pick examples favourable to your argument there - and even then you can't put forward stats which aren't flawed.

Very much a case of trying to myopically narrow discussion to suit your argument - when what you're bringing up are only potential edge-cases - which have such a poor level of study that they can't even be supported as valid exceptions either.

JPNelsforearm

I dont think you get it, no matter how much training women do, they will never be able to match a male team, infantry are essentially pack horses, the physical effort combined with firefights mean females will always fall way below the standards. Unless you put women on exogenous hormones they will fail, they are physiologically incapable of being marines or infantry, which is no shame, considering a lot of men are physiologically incapable of being marines/infantry.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683

"Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics."

"The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P < or = 0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively. "

"The average VO2max is about 33 milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body mass per minute for sedentary young women and around 42 ml/kg/min for sedentary young men "(Bouchard et al., Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 30: 252-8, 1998). Elite female distance runners can sometimes reach VO2max readings of 70+ ml/kg/min (Pate et al., International Journal of Sports Medicine 8 (Suppl.): 91-5, 1987), whereas elite men can attain values in the 80s (Pollock, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 301: 310-22, 1977).

Do you honestly believe that anyone who is not able to handle the physical side of a physical job is not a danger to themselves, the people they serve and most importantly their colleagues?

When you have a job that requires both physical strength and endurance as a basic, unequivocal requirement, and a gender that will struggle to attain the minimum standard, quotas are not going to solve the "problem" of a lack of gender "balance".

And Im not "cherry picking" as regards gender quotas, Im giving concrete examples of where quotas, in jobs that physical aptitude is a requirement, are detrimental, and are basically a lowering of standards. Standards, which, were implemented in the first place to weed out the unfit, of any gender. Jobs in the Garda, the Army, Navy , Fire Service should be open for anyone who is both mentally and physically able for the job, if that means 100% women, or 100% men in any one recruitment cycle, so be it, no compromise on standards.

Im focusing on gender quotas in these jobs as they are the most obvious example of where they will lead to a clear lowering of standards, as well as cheapening the massive accomplishments of any women who have passed the real standards required to do the job

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So she's not forcing the definition on anyone

I know I just said that. But feel free to keep repeating it like I made the claim.

and there is pretty much zero chance of the definition she used, becoming mainstream -

So you're a fortune teller now?
You've no way of backing up that claim.

you've got no valid criticism against her

Apart from all the ones I've previously made. :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

I think the likes of Sarkeesian are shooting themselves in the foot when using the definition of bigotry in general as "power and prejudice". Surely that's where the "institutional" qualifier (e.g. institutional racism) should be used, no?

KomradeBishop

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I dont think you get it, no matter how much training women do, they will never be able to match a male team, infantry are essentially pack horses, the physical effort combined with firefights mean females will always fall way below the standards. Unless you put women on exogenous hormones they will fail, they are physiologically incapable of being marines or infantry, which is no shame, considering a lot of men are physiologically incapable of being marines/infantry.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683

"Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics."

"The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P < or = 0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively. "

"The average VO2max is about 33 milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body mass per minute for sedentary young women and around 42 ml/kg/min for sedentary young men "(Bouchard et al., Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 30: 252-8, 1998). Elite female distance runners can sometimes reach VO2max readings of 70+ ml/kg/min (Pate et al., International Journal of Sports Medicine 8 (Suppl.): 91-5, 1987), whereas elite men can attain values in the 80s (Pollock, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 301: 310-22, 1977).

Do you honestly believe that anyone who is not able to handle the physical side of a physical job is not a danger to themselves, the people they serve and most importantly their colleagues?

When you have a job that requires both physical strength and endurance as a basic, unequivocal requirement, and a gender that will struggle to attain the minimum standard, quotas are not going to solve the "problem" of a lack of gender "balance".

And Im not "cherry picking" as regards gender quotas, Im giving concrete examples of where quotas, in jobs that physical aptitude is a requirement, are detrimental, and are basically a lowering of standards. Standards, which, were implemented in the first place to weed out the unfit, of any gender. Jobs in the Garda, the Army, Navy , Fire Service should be open for anyone who is both mentally and physically able for the job, if that means 100% women, or 100% men in any one recruitment cycle, so be it, no compromise on standards.

Im focusing on gender quotas in these jobs as they are the most obvious example of where they will lead to a clear lowering of standards, as well as cheapening the massive accomplishments of any women who have passed the real standards required to do the job

You're ignoring that the biological difference is not the question - the final outcome on the quality of the actual work is the question, which you don't determine by making a priori assumptions about physical aptitude, but by actually testing it and getting stats (testing the quality of the final work, not the difference in physical abilities...).

Nobody here has argued for blanket introduction of quota's either (I'm not even sure I agree with quota's of any kind at all yet) - so I'm open to the idea that there may be especially good reasons why they are inapplicable in some areas - but arguments based on gender differences in physical strength, are pretty weak really and lacking in evidence.

Quota's do not automatically mean a lowering of standards either - which is one of the links people are trying to make here - as there is no reason why standards can not be kept in place, while allowing the quota to lapse if not enough people pass the minimum standards; so that's a completely different and unrelated argument really.

KomradeBishop

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think the likes of Sarkeesian are shooting themselves in the foot when using the definition of bigotry in general as "power and prejudice". Surely that's where the "institutional" qualifier (e.g. institutional racism) should be used, no?

Ya that was my own feeling on it too. I could not find a single other instance of her, anywhere else on the Internet, using the term like that again though - so it seems to me, like she said it once, saw the shítstorm it generated and how unproductive/self-defeating it was, and just changed her narrative to avoid the same confusion happening again.

looksee

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're ignoring that the biological difference is not the question - the final outcome on the quality of the actual work is the question, which you don't determine by making a priori assumptions about physical aptitude, but by actually testing it and getting stats (testing the quality of the final work, not the difference in physical abilities...).

Nobody here has argued for blanket introduction of quota's either (I'm not even sure I agree with quota's of any kind at all yet) - so I'm open to the idea that there may be especially good reasons why they are inapplicable in some areas - but arguments based on gender differences in physical strength, are pretty weak really and lacking in evidence.

Quota's do not automatically mean a lowering of standards either - which is one of the links people are trying to make here - as there is no reason why standards can not be kept in place, while allowing the quota to lapse if not enough people pass the minimum standards; so that's a completely different and unrelated argument really.

The evidence was offered - that standards were lowered in order to allow women to qualify for the jobs. Of course physical strength matters in a job such as fire fighting.

It may be that there have been some selective and not overly accurate instances quoted by people who do not want quotas for other reasons than physical ability, but we can only discuss based on the information we have.

Your last para does not make any sense at all - if quotas 'lapse' because of a shortage of females able to pass the minimum standards, then they are not quotas, and there is no argument.

KomradeBishop

The end result of actual overall job performance for all workers is what matters though, not the standards required to get into it. One does relate to the other, but you can only measure the actual end results, by looking at the final performance - that's what determines if there is an issue, not the standards required to get in.

My last paragraph does make sense: It's the same situation as not enough females applying for the job. Quota's don't have to be hard-set.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Not all people "politely disagree" with hard-line feminists. There are a number of unpleasant websites which appeared in the wake of Elevatorgate and which are dedicated to insulting hard-line feminists and what they stand for (or claim to stand for). Occasionally in quite a gross fashion - Slyme Pit is one - there are others:

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/

I've no idea who these posters are, or whether there's sock puppetry going on, whether hard-line feminists might be posting there, or anything else. All one can say for certain is that somebody's doing it and that it didn't really happen before hard-line feminism began to intrude into the realms of atheism and skepticism.

Sargon just uploaded a video where he has interviewed the people behind Slimepit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6MgnlUbRZI

silverharp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Again, you're assuming there is a position of no discrimination in the first place - that not doing anything is the 'natural' state of order - as my previous post explained, it's not as clear cut as that.

You are also claiming that standards/quality are being 'lowered' - well, show some stats that prove the negative impact then? Without that, your argument has no backing - it's based on an assumption.

We're just retreading the same arguments in different words here - I've already covered most of this in the very post you're replying to, it's a bit tedious having to repeat myself - I've already shown you don't have any backing for the above arguments.

an example here, here is a woman officer talking through some of the issues relating to the military. Re the Police, if you are being attacked by a 20 stone rugby player who is high on drugs, who do you want to come to your assistance? or if we are talking about a firefigher, who is going to be able to get you down 10 flights of stairs quicker? . the standards need to be the standards and if a women is strong enough great but dont lower the standards and then pretend there are no consequences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjwtdhpcUzw

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

an example here, here is a woman officer talking through some of the issues relating to the military. Re the Police, if you are being attacked by a 20 stone rugby player who is high on drugs, who do you want to come to your assistance? or if we are talking about a firefigher, who is going to be able to get you down 10 flights of stairs quicker? . the standards need to be the standards and if a women is strong enough great but dont lower the standards and then pretend there are no consequences

I don't do replies to "argument by YouTube" - especially when taken from such a reliable source as Fox News.

In addition though, you are again talking about assumptions on how the final on-the-job performance may be affected, you're not providing stats showing the actual final effect on the job.

Stats showing the well known gender differences in strength, don't show this - they are based on stats gathered before actually performing on the job.

orubiru

silverharp wrote: »

Sargon just uploaded a video where he has interviewed the people behind Slimepit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6MgnlUbRZI

I had to watch this in installments but it's a very interesting take on the whole situation.

I don't necessarily disagree with the goals of "Atheism+" but their methods and their attitude towards disagreement were appalling.

The idea is that the Slyme Pit people are supposed to be these evil villains but they don't really seem all that extreme.

If anything it's the people who are the self-styled "good guys" here that are behaving terribly.

(Though I bet the truth is that people on both sides have been behaving terribly)

From 1:24:40 to 1:26:33. That's actually really horrible stuff if true. You basically have people using false allegations to try and push themselves into positions of power.

Part of the problem with these situations is that you don't really get to hear both sides of the story before being ordered to pick a side.

I guess most of this stuff is confined to the internet, thankfully.