There shouldn't be "equality" in police and military

Level 11
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
361
Consider the videos below: (Note that there are MANY more examples)



In all these videos, the women fail to restrain a suspect simply because those women aren't capable of physically overpowering a grown man. In the first video, this causes an innocent bystander to get shot. And there are more videos floating around of police officers, who had to use guns because they weren't able to physically restrain a suspect.

And yet, despite the numerous videos featuring such situations, so many people in online and real life spheres STILL go "wE neeD rEpreSenTation!" like a sheep. How many cases like these do we need before people get it through their skulls, that maybe, just maybe... We should have people best equipped for the job.

And don't get me wrong - I DO realize that there are also men, who are rather small in stature, and weak. Which is why, as I said in the title, there shouldn't be "equality" in armed forces - if somebody doesn't pass the tests, they are out. Standards shouldn't be lowered for anyone. However, it is a fact that on average, men are larger, stronger, and better equipped for fighting.
New Army Combat Fitness Test: 84% of Women Fail - CMR

As below links prove further, by showing that women get injured more during training
Risk factors for training injuries among British Army recruits - PubMed
BBC News | HEALTH | Army training 'too tough for women'
BBC News | Health | Basic training floors female army recruits
(The BBC links aren't fake, they are just old: Changing face of the BBC News website)

But this is not just about the physical strength and endurance. It's also about human nature and psychology. For example, below links show, that unintended pregnancies are more likely in military (comparing percentage of population), than non-military. Yes, you heard this right.
Unintended pregnancy among active-duty women in the United States military, 2011 - PubMed
(Also the pinned pdf file)

Also, let's not forget this:
Sexual harassment in the military - Wikipedia

Lastly, if you can ignore the snarky tone of the article, this also contains some useful links and quotes for information on this topic:
Putting Women in Combat -- Ineffective, Terrible Idea | [site:name] | National Review
 

Attachments

  • milmed-d-16-00003.pdf
    503 KB · Views: 73
Level 18
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,216
Doesn't seem fair to just be looking at their performance in violent situations.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252963.pdf

That article discusses how police women defuse more violent situations than men before they even escalate to the point of violence, how there are higher % of reportings of crimes against women when there are higher % of women int he police force, etc.

It also notes how there are many barriers to women getting into the policeforce in the first place, so them trying to achieve equality might just be them rectifying an issue that has slowly built up over time since old days when police was just a man's profession.
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
361
Doesn't seem fair to just be looking at their performance in violent situations.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252963.pdf

That article discusses how police women defuse more violent situations than men before they even escalate to the point of violence, how there are higher % of reportings of crimes against women when there are higher % of women int he police force, etc.

It also notes how there are many barriers to women getting into the policeforce in the first place, so them trying to achieve equality might just be them rectifying an issue that has slowly built up over time since old days when police was just a man's profession.
And what happens when a situation cannot be de-escalated? All the 3 videos I've shown, they failed to do their duty. One even got a bystander injured as a consequence, and the cop herself almost died. And, as I said before, these are just a few examples. There are lots of videos like that.

A police officer HAS to be ready for the situation that cannot be de-escalated, and physical struggle takes place. And most women aren't capable of dealing with such situations.
 
And what happens when a situation cannot be de-escalated? All the 3 videos I've shown, they failed to do their duty. One even got a bystander injured as a consequence, and the cop herself almost died. And, as I said before, these are just a few examples. There are lots of videos like that.

A police officer HAS to be ready for the situation that cannot be de-escalated, and physical struggle takes place. And most women aren't capable of dealing with such situations.

Implying all men are capable of handling these situations. Wouldnt you agree thats wrong?
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
361
Implying all men are capable of handling these situations. Wouldnt you agree thats wrong?
I addressed this in my post:
And don't get me wrong - I DO realize that there are also men, who are rather small in stature, and weak. Which is why, as I said in the title, there shouldn't be "equality" in armed forces - if somebody doesn't pass the tests, they are out. Standards shouldn't be lowered for anyone. However, it is a fact that on average, men are larger, stronger, and better equipped for fighting.
 
I think entrance into the police/military is very much a case of equality of opportunity.
The people best suited for being regular police officers surely aren't women, generally speaking. So in a meritocracy where there's equality of opportunity women wouldn't get hired as police officers that deals with violent criminals due to their physical inferiority, simply because there are better suited people to fill the positions.
 

deepstrasz

Map Reviewer
Level 59
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
16,845
That article discusses how police women defuse more violent situations than men before they even escalate to the point of violence, how there are higher % of reportings of crimes against women when there are higher % of women int he police force, etc.
The discussion is about law enforcement and state defense not about diplomacy and psycho therapy.
It also notes how there are many barriers to women getting into the policeforce in the first place, so them trying to achieve equality might just be them rectifying an issue that has slowly built up over time since old days when police was just a man's profession.
One of the barriers being their innateness not helping them in all that's needed to be passed.

Yeah exactly so gender isnt the issue here.
Not alone but it's the wider factor as shown in the studies.
Sure, buff women with steroids and stuff, they might get a much better chance at being men.

Having "equality" in any job is useless, hail meritocracy where the best suited person gets the job.
Natural meritocracy.
 
The people best suited for being regular police officers surely aren't women, generally speaking. So in a meritocracy where there's equality of opportunity women wouldn't get hired as police officers that deals with violent criminals due to their physical inferiority, simply because there are better suited people to fill the positions.

If the police's role was solely taking down large violent individuals, which its not. In a meritocracy all positions are open to everyone in order that they prove themselves or their merit. A woman cant prove her merit if shes never given the chance.

"Regular" officers generally deal with small minor offenses chasing after petty criminals or investigating larger crimes as part of a team or partnership. In all these situations a woman is no less capable than a man.

Tell me what happens in the instance a woman needs to be searched/patted down would you rather a man do it or a woman?

We already had the situation where only men could be police officers in history and it was not ideal. From history we know having women police officers is better and does not detract from the police forces capabilities or duties.
 

deepstrasz

Map Reviewer
Level 59
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
16,845
If the police's role was solely taking down large violent individuals, which its not. In a meritocracy all positions are open to everyone in order that they prove themselves or their merit. A woman cant prove her merit if shes never given the chance.
The point is that women shouldn't be in all police and military departments if they cannot pass the physical fitness exams (no, not the dumb down ones).
If they cannot perform well on the field, they shouldn't be there.
In the second video Amigoltu posted, you can see a tall strong man which had been a problem for two fit men to arrest, even more so for two little women.
Tell me what happens in the instance a woman needs to be searched/patted down would you rather a man do it or a woman?
But what if that man is gay and is being searched or searches a man? How about a lesbian searching a woman or being searched by a woman?
Or what if a woman searches a man? I'm pretty sure this last one won't be considered sexual assault. Always the victim card...
So, you're saying you specifically need women to search women and men to search other men.
We already had the situation where only men could be police officers in history and it was not ideal. From history we know having women police officers is better and does not detract from the police forces capabilities or duties.
How is it better?
How is it worse?
I'd like to imagine how the Greeks would have won against the Persians if they had women in the military back then.
 
If the police's role was solely taking down large violent individuals, which its not.
I know, which is why I said they shouldn't be hired as officers who deals with violent criminals but rather other departments as @deepstrasz pointed out.
In a meritocracy all positions are open to everyone in order that they prove themselves or their merit.
Yeah all positions are open for everyone to apply to, that doesn't mean everyone will get them. If no men applied for these positions then women would be hired since they are the best options they have. Fortunately for society men are the ones who send the majority of the applications.
A woman cant prove her merit if shes never given the chance.
Because an employer doesn't gamble on hiring women that "can" be a better fit when the biological evidence points in favor of men.
"Regular" officers generally deal with small minor offenses chasing after petty criminals or investigating larger crimes as part of a team or partnership. In all these situations a woman is no less capable than a man.
Sure if they're investigating larger crimes as part of an investigation unit they're not normal police officers anymore and doesn't fall under the category we are talking about. If they're chasing after people for petty crimes they will have a harder time chasing after the criminals since they run slower.
Tell me what happens in the instance a woman needs to be searched/patted down would you rather a man do it or a woman?
The sex of the person who pats you down shouldn't be a problem as long as the person who does it is focused on his job, not on sexual harassment. Your safety and the safety of the ones around you shouldn't be jeopardized because someone feels uncomfortable being patted down by a guy.
We already had the situation where only men could be police officers in history and it was not ideal. From history we know having women police officers is better and does not detract from the police forces capabilities or duties.
Do you have any sources or analytical data to support this claim? Speaking only about the departments of the police who is on the ground of course.
 
The point is that women shouldn't be in all police and military departments if they cannot pass the physical fitness exams (no, not the dumb down ones).
If they cannot perform well on the field, they shouldn't be there.
In the second video Amigoltu posted, you can see a tall strong man which had been a problem for two fit men to arrest, even more so for two little women.

Which had been a problem for two fit men to arrest. So again i need to point out that gender isnt the issue here if even male officers have difficulty subduing these people.

But what if that man is gay and is being searched or searches a man? How about a lesbian searching a woman or being searched by a woman?
Or what if a woman searches a man? I'm pretty sure this last one won't be considered sexual assault. Always the victim card...
So, you're saying you specifically need women to search women and men to search other men.

Generally speaking for a myriad of reasons people are more comfortable with that so yes and if the public prefer something its generally best to go along with it. Helps to avoid the numerous sexual assaults on women conducted by male TSA officers.

How is it better?
How is it worse?
I'd like to imagine how the Greeks would have won against the Persians if they had women in the military back then.

As tulee pointed out female police officers are much better at defusing situations before they get violent. Sexual violence was rampant in the police force before femal police officers. As for your random last sentence youd need to be more specific there were multiple wars and battles between the Greeks and the Persians.

I know, which is why I said they shouldn't be hired as officers who deals with violent criminals but rather other departments as @deepstrasz pointed out.

You do realise there are only really 3 kinds of police? Beat cops, detectives and SWAT all three of which can run into violent criminals?

Yeah all positions are open for everyone to apply to, that doesn't mean everyone will get them. If no men applied for these positions then women would be hired since they are the best options they have. Fortunately for society men are the ones who send the majority of the applications.[\quote]

And the police seem to think that women are fit for the job hence why they hire them. Im more willing to believe the police see no issue with female officers than some people on the internet who as far as im aware are not police.

Because an employer doesn't gamble on hiring women that "can" be a better fit when the biological evidence points in favor of men.[\quote]

I may be wrong but im sure applications are assessed on individual merit.

Sure if they're investigating larger crimes as part of an investigation unit they're not normal police officers anymore and doesn't fall under the category we are talking about. If they're chasing after people for petty crimes they will have a harder time chasing after the criminals since they run slower.

Theres no evidence of female officers being worse at catching criminals than male officers or at least not any worse as to cause a noticable detriment.

The sex of the person who pats you down shouldn't be a problem as long as the person who does it is focused on his job, not on sexual harassment. Your safety and the safety of the ones around you shouldn't be jeopardized because someone feels uncomfortable being patted down by a guy.[\quote]

Sure in an ideal world id agree but history and even recent cases such as TSA agents raping and sexually assaulting multiple women dont support your assesmment.

Do you have any sources or analytical data to support this claim? Speaking only about the departments of the police who is on the ground of course.

Sure im on my phone right now but ill fish then out later on :)
 

deepstrasz

Map Reviewer
Level 59
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
16,845
Which had been a problem for two fit men to arrest. So again i need to point out that gender isnt the issue here if even male officers have difficulty subduing these people.
I like it how you twist things.
Generally, men are tougher than women. That is the point. Sex has to do with it, quite a lot.
More men on the force than women->higher chances for such things as in that video not to happen.
Generally speaking for a myriad of reasons people are more comfortable with that so yes and if the public prefer something its generally best to go along with it. Helps to avoid the numerous sexual assaults on women conducted by male TSA officers.
Yeah, of course because criminals care about political correctness and will stand still until you bring a same sex person to search them. Sure, in airports this might work because things are ready to go but in missions, things don't always go as planned.
As tulee pointed out female police officers are much better at defusing situations before they get violent. Sexual violence was rampant in the police force before femal police officers. As for your random last sentence youd need to be more specific there were multiple wars and battles between the Greeks and the Persians.
It's not random at all. It pretty much covers all wars. Imagine the Greeks sending women against Persian men. I wonder who'd win. Oh, but you're gonna say, those women will be so smart that their hand to hand combat strength won't even matter and will eventually win. But I was thinking of one of the most spectacular battles, that of Leonidas.
You're saying men were harassed by other men before women came on the force? So, you're saying that it doesn't matter that women are now in too, because the percentages of sexual harassment is the same?
Give more detail man on what you're writing. It's so vague...
Female defusing violent situations doesn't help out with the real criminals or people like those in the video. Those don't give any alphabet letters on how diplomatic women or anyone is.
You do realise there are only really 3 kinds of police? Beat cops, detectives and SWAT all three of which can run into violent criminals?
No my friend. Women don't need to be on the field. They can do desk jobs, investigate, take care of logistics etc.

So, as those articles pointed out, women just cannot compete with men in a satisfying percentage and that's hurting mission achievement efficiency.
Second, I wouldn't want our women battered on the streets by any types of individuals. I'd rather have them safe especially if they have children. Men are less reliable when it comes to proper parenting.
 
You do realise there are only really 3 kinds of police? Beat cops, detectives and SWAT all three of which can run into violent criminals?
Depends what country you're basing it on. Many police has a lot more than just that. You have traffic police, you have the ones who works in the office with forensic work and so on. There are many departments, at least in the countries I have lived in.
And the police seem to think that women are fit for the job hence why they hire them. Im more willing to believe the police see no issue with female officers than some people on the internet who as far as im aware are not police.
Well you don't have to take mine or anyone elses word for it. The police who seem to think women are fit for the job have made an evaluation. If their physical and mental evaluation is right or wrong can be up for debate, and there are of course exceptions to the rule where some women who have extremely good physique and/or combat training would be a better fit than most men. In pretty much every country on planet earth men are the majority of police officers, so listen to them instead of "some people on the internet who are not police".
I may be wrong but im sure applications are assessed on individual merit.
Individual merit? There are certain universal requirements that needs to be met for both men and women. Some of those requirements are easier for men to fulfill.
Theres no evidence of female officers being worse at catching criminals than male officers or at least not any worse as to cause a noticable detriment.
The evidence is physical inferiority.
Sure in an ideal world id agree but history and even recent cases such as TSA agents raping and sexually assaulting multiple women dont support your assesmment.
As you said the world isn't perfect, but we shouldn't start sending women to the front lines for the sole purpose of patting people down without the risk of sexual harassment.
Sure im on my phone right now but ill fish then out later on :)
No rush.
 
Level 22
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
1,453
Speaking from first hand knowledge and experience in the USA:

As of right now like you said, there is not equality in police hiring standards, but equity (with some exceptions)

Re: Women and PAT (physical agility test)
They get a lighter body drag requirement, longer run times, less reps for pull-ups, sit-ups and push-ups.

There is hushed discriminatory hiring (soon to be out in the open, due to a upcoming repeal of certain civil rights laws). For example, a white male is the least likely to chosen from a group of candidates. A multicultural LGBTQ (female looking) is most likely.

If you have ever been in a fight (especially for your life), you'll know you do not want a 5' 100 lbs female to be your only backup (you're essentially on your own, and they introduce new weapons to the fight which can be taken and used against you + them)

It sucks and it makes the work place less safe for EVERYONE. Including the public.
 

deepstrasz

Map Reviewer
Level 59
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
16,845
Yeah but PragerU doesn't really give that side a good argument considering the amount of wrong, misleading and false information and claims in their videos.
No one shows the full picture. Everyone is biased for their own side.
That is not to say that if you have the mind for discernment you can judge for yourself and take the proper information out from the whole.

I invite you to write why that particular video is biased and not worth watching.
 
No one shows the full picture. Everyone is biased for their own side.
That is not to say that if you have the mind for discernment you can judge for yourself and take the proper information out from the whole.

I invite you to write why that particular video is biased and not worth watching.

Sure if I have time and dont forget I'll see about giving you a blow by blow transcript and analysis of the video if it's not too long.
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
361
Sure if I have time and dont forget I'll see about giving you a blow by blow transcript and analysis of the video if it's not too long.
Or you can just address the arguments made in the video and refute them one by one. Should be easy enough, since you are so sure of it being false. You must have the arguments ready at hand.


Unless... You judged the video just because it's PragerU, without even listening to the actual material. Which would make it an ad hominem fallacy.

No one shows the full picture. Everyone is biased for their own side.
Aye, that is true. However hard it may be to look at the arguments of the opposing side, it's required for a discussion. Also, looking at a different perspective is good for one's growth as an individual.
 

Unless... You judged the video just because it's PragerU, without even listening to the actual material. Which would make it an ad hominem fallacy.

Ehh thats not ad Hom, but you're right that i am making a lot of pre-judgements just because its a PragerU video.

The same way that if someone every Friday goes a walk I can guess pretty well that this Friday they will go a walk. Not guaranteed of course but its a fair enough guess to make.

Since every PragerU video Ive ever seen has always contained misinformation, false narratives and just getting basic facts wrong a lot of the time it is a fair guess that that vid will be no different.

EDIT: Just watched it and indeed probably one of the most disingenuous and harmful videos on feminism and gender ive seen in a while. So looks like my pre judgment was correct.
 
Last edited:
Level 11
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
361
Just watched it and indeed probably one of the most disingenuous and harmful videos on feminism and gender ive seen in a while. So looks like my pre judgment was correct.
So, you admitted to having a prejudice on this YT channel, and you still did not provide a single argument against the video. Calling something/someone "disingenuous", or wrong isn't an argument.
 
So, you admitted to having a prejudice on this YT channel, and you still did not provide a single argument against the video. Calling something/someone "disingenuous", or wrong isn't an argument.

True, I have not as I haven't had the time to properly sit down and go through the video thoroughly.

However one point that stuck out to me was the complete lack of any sources or evidence for almost any of the sweeping claims he made.
 

fladdermasken

Off-Topic Moderator
Level 38
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
3,688
All I know is that if I was staring down the murderer version of Ving Rhames or whatever, which every beat cop does eventually, I'd want Andrew Klavan to back me up and not some scrawny chick. He'd tailor the arcane arts of biology to his whims so seemlessly the assailant would be pumped full of estrogen before he could crack our ribs with his now well pedicured girl fists.

We all know only half of all women look like the crippled Smeagol dude from 300 but we don't need science to imagine the masacre that would ensue if a bunch of those freaks tried to fight off the Persian hordes of ghoulish giants, and rhinos, and monsters, and Rodrigo Santaro and... I forget the plot of the movie, but you get my point.

Although I guess Lena Headley was pretty bad ass as Queen Gorgo. I guess it wouldn't be too horrible if every cop was a Gorgo, but I haven't seen enough movies with strong lead chicks like Ocean's 8 so my pool of references is desperately exhausted at this point. So I guess I'm still on the fence.
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
361
True, I have not as I haven't had the time to properly sit down and go through the video thoroughly.

However one point that stuck out to me was the complete lack of any sources or evidence for almost any of the sweeping claims he made.
Because most of the arguments he makes, seemingly are either: simple and well-known biological facts, or historical facts.

The man in the video also does not denigrate women, or any other group of people. And in general, the message of the video is very positive.
 
Because most of the arguments he makes, seemingly are either: simple and well-known biological facts, or historical facts.

The man in the video also does not denigrate women, or any other group of people. And in general, the message of the video is very positive.

Except they're not. For example, the code of chivalry was more about conducting war and very little about how to treat women. Also in medieval society up until the 70s here, marital rape was a thing so hardly a beacon of womens rights. His part about prehistoric humans is also wrong as archaeological evidence seems to suggest that hunting and raising children was a task shared by both the men and the women.

Except he does denigrate them subtly through his insinuations and the inferences of What he says. The message may be positive but the message is wrong.
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
361
For example, the code of chivalry was more about conducting war and very little about how to treat women.
Chivalry is an interesting topic, and it involved both, actually. It highly depended on individuals, society and times. It evolved too, like all things. And it's meaning changed through times. These guys talk about it more:



The point is, that the video is neither right nor wrong here. Chivalry was not exclusively what the video described, but it was also that too.

Also in medieval society up until the 70s here, marital rape was a thing so hardly a beacon of womens rights.
First of all, what kind of "marital rape" are we talking about? Secondly, were such things really supported by the society of those times? Hardly.

And whichever way, the point is, that women WERE respected and often took up positions of power throughout history. The whole idea of them being "oppressed" throughout history is just wrong. At least in the western world, that is.

His part about prehistoric humans is also wrong as archaeological evidence seems to suggest that hunting and raising children was a task shared by both the men and the women.
Point is, that men are physically more equipped to do the fighting and the hunting. Women are more physically and mentally equipped to do the caring and nurturing. This is simple biology.

Except he does denigrate them subtly through his insinuations and the inferences of What he says.
Can you explain what you mean here more specifically?
 
Chivalry is an interesting topic, and it involved both, actually. It highly depended on individuals, society and times. It evolved too, like all things. And it's meaning changed through times. These guys talk about it more:



The point is, that the video is neither right nor wrong here. Chivalry was not exclusively what the video described, but it was also that too.

The video is wrong, as we have both agreed Chivalry was not a set of rules purely for the protection and aid of women as Andrew Klavin portrays it to be. His 1D portrayal of chivalry is wrong and disingenuous precisely so it supports his viewpoint.

First of all, what kind of "marital rape" are we talking about? Secondly, were such things really supported by the society of those times? Hardly.

The kind where a husband is legally and socially entitled to have sex with his wife even if she doesn't consent or doesn't want to. As to your second point yes they were really supported by society in fact, it was specifically legal to rape your wife for several hundred years until shockingly recently. Look at Lucrezia Borgia and the horrific treatment her first husband subjected her to as an example.

And whichever way, the point is, that women WERE respected and often took up positions of power throughout history. The whole idea of them being "oppressed" throughout history is just wrong. At least in the western world, that is.

Not really true. Some women were able to become Queen's throughout history or in very rare and exceptional circumstances hold offices of power but even when they did there was a lot of outcry and efforts to undermine and subvert them BECAUSE they were a woman. Just look at the history of English Queens and what they were subjected to and had to put up with.

Point is, that men are physically more equipped to do the fighting and the hunting. Women are more physically and mentally equipped to do the caring and nurturing. This is simple biology.

Point is that that doesn't really matter and is no real reason to discriminate against them. Also as for Women being more "mentally" equipped to do the caring and nurturing is again wrong, men are just as capable of looking after children and raising them. Your opinion is both harmful to women and men in society. Also I don't see how men being on average physically stronger should exclude women from being a CEO, manager etc roles which don't require any physicality.


Can you explain what you mean here more specifically?

What I mean is that Andrew Klavin's bullshit has the potential to convince other people to his unsupported way of thinking and thereby cause damage to the progress society has made so far in terms of women's and men's rights. For whilst he doesn't make any overt statements that could be seen as harmful to women a lot of what he says wholly implicates that women should just be subservient housewives with no career prospects; who's sole role is to make children for their husband.
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
361
The video is wrong, as we have both agreed Chivalry was not a set of rules purely for the protection and aid of women as Andrew Klavin portrays it to be. His 1D portrayal of chivalry is wrong and disingenuous precisely so it supports his viewpoint.
Yes, it wasn't purely designed to protect women (though again, the idea of it changed through the ages), but the video isn't wrong either - as I explained before, protection of those in need was often part of "Code of Chivalry".

The kind where a husband is legally and socially entitled to have sex with his wife even if she doesn't consent or doesn't want to. As to your second point yes they were really supported by society in fact, it was specifically legal to rape your wife for several hundred years until shockingly recently. Look at Lucrezia Borgia and the horrific treatment her first husband subjected her to as an example.
That, I believe, is a problem of our modern standards being applied to ancient times. The point of (NOBLE) marriage in those times was very often to secure alliances, or achieve other political goals. And to unite two families/factions, you needed an heir. Both men and women knew exactly what they were getting into when getting married, and both knew they'd have to "consumate" that marriage ASAP and produce an heir. It was a duty of both husband and wife. Such was often the price of nobility.

And this is just the abridged version of it. I'd suggest you actually do some research into the society of those times, and why things were as they were. And don't just read outrage articles designed to paint women as victims.

Not really true. Some women were able to become Queen's throughout history [...]
I didn't just mean Queens. I meant any woman married into a Royal/Noble family. She immediately acquires immense political power, both direct and indirect (through her husband).

[...] but even when they did there was a lot of outcry and efforts to undermine and subvert them BECAUSE they were a woman. Just look at the history of English Queens and what they were subjected to and had to put up with.
Really now? Can you give specific examples of such events?

Point is that that doesn't really matter and is no real reason to discriminate against them.
It's not discrimination. It's using the best-equipped people for particular tasks. And men and women happen to be good at different tasks. Which is good. Because we complement one another.

Also as for Women being more "mentally" equipped to do the caring and nurturing is again wrong, men are just as capable of looking after children and raising them.
They are. Women are naturally more inclined to care for people. Look at how many women work caring for elders or children, in relation to men. Women are also more emotional and compassionate.

These are, of course, generalizations and there are exceptions to everything. But generally (as in, mostly), this is the case.

Your opinion is both harmful to women and men in society. Also I don't see how men being on average physically stronger should exclude women from being a CEO, manager etc roles which don't require any physicality.
How is my opinion harmful to anyone? Care to explain? And also, we aren't talking about CEOs or managers, and I never said they can't take up these positions. Please abstain from making strawmans.

What I mean is that Andrew Klavin's bullshit has the potential to convince other people to his unsupported way of thinking and thereby cause damage to the progress society has made so far in terms of women's and men's rights. For whilst he doesn't make any overt statements that could be seen as harmful to women a lot of what he says wholly implicates that women should just be subservient housewives with no career prospects; who's sole role is to make children for their husband.
Except he never said, or implied anything of the sort. Again, you are making strawman arguments.

The point of the video, is that modern feminism denigrates men and masculinity and tries to paint the picture as if men and women are the same, interchangeable (which is obviously wrong in every sense). Feminism is harming the society this way, creating disagreements between sexes where there shouldn't be, and does it all under the mask of "equality". Feminism hasn't been for equality for a long time, if it even EVER was.
 
Last edited:
Level 20
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
1,612
Point is that that doesn't really matter and is no real reason to discriminate against them. Also as for Women being more "mentally" equipped to do the caring and nurturing is again wrong, men are just as capable of looking after children and raising them.
No, it does matter, you just keep denying the obvious evidence of biology: men and physically stronger than women. Let that soak in your mind for a second. If a man and a woman take a test to be a police officer and there's only 1 empty space, it will be chosen the best appropriate person for the job. Also note that a police officer doesn't have only physical training, you have be the the toughest guy on the planet, but if you don't know how to punch and basic combat movies, dodges, and all that, chances are that you'll get down pretty easily. Still, the chances for the job (police officer) gravitates towards men, generally speaking.
So yes, this isn't about discrimination, but basic facts.
One funny thing that I never understood, is the fact people advocate for equality, but then I always ask "Why aren't there any women as construction workers?". Even a toddler could understand why.
In this world we have one thing, equality, meaning equality of opportunity, everyone can apply to a job, but not everyone gets it.
Moral of the story, work on your competence, apply to a job and work hard, like normal people. If you still didn't get the job, too bad, there's always someone better than you, no don't whine, accept it, deal with it and get stronger.
Not everyone is a winner, that's real life.
 
No, it does matter, you just keep denying the obvious evidence of biology: men and physically stronger than women.

I dont ignore that fact, I just fail to see its relevance to most of the arguments made.

You seem to have this weird idea that the sole role of a police officer is physical in nature and that even then women cant pass those physical requirements as shown in the Canadian Mounties who have equal physical tests for men and women.

@Amigoltu I'm not gonna continue this discussion with you and you're fantastical view of the middle ages and your excuses of rape.
 
Level 20
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
1,612
I dont ignore that fact, I just fail to see its relevance to most of the arguments made.
Because our differences are relevant for several roles.
It most likely explains why there are no female construction workers, and why women in the frontline of military is an absolute joke, although they could perfectly fit to other roles there.

You seem to have this weird idea that the sole role of a police officer is physical in nature and that even then women cant pass those physical requirements as shown in the Canadian Mounties who have equal physical tests for men and women.
Are you kidding me, did you just ignore more than half of my post?
I specifically said it isn't all about physical build, but also techniques they learn to resolve conflicts. It isn't about passing the test or not, it's about who's the best for the job, just because you passed your test doesn't mean you are guaranteed a spot on.
 
Because our differences are relevant for several roles.
It most likely explains why there are no female construction workers, and why women in the frontline of military is an absolute joke, although they could perfectly fit to other roles there.


Are you kidding me, did you just ignore more than half of my post?
I specifically said it isn't all about physical build, but also techniques they learn to resolve conflicts. It isn't about passing the test or not, it's about who's the best for the job, just because you passed your test doesn't mean you are guaranteed a spot on.

I'm glad we agree its not all about physical build as by this logic women definitely have a place in the police. The advantages of having female police officers are well documented including an increase in other women reporting crimes etc.

I honestly think this debate is so outdated and should be completely unnecessary in today's society. Women have more than proven them their place in these sectors that to question it is almost to question self-evident truths.
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
361
@Amigoltu I'm not gonna continue this discussion with you and you're fantastical view of the middle ages and your excuses of rape.
It wasn't "my views", it was historical facts. And I didn't "excuse rape".

As for you, your only counter-arguments were strawman arguments. You completely misunderstood the meaning of the video (willingly or not), and argued points that were never made or implied by it. And when I called you out, you chose to weasel out of the discussion like this...

Just as I expected, you cannot argue against that video, or even me. Case closed.
 
Top