here's a thread gaureteed to cause controversy...
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: here's a thread gaureteed to cause controversy...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    356

    here's a thread gaureteed to cause controversy...

    ok, i'll admit its inspired elseware(namely http://www.michaelmoore.com/cgi-bin/...&f=17&t=000157 but dont bother trying to read it all...i'm about to sum up the points important to this post). basically what that thread says is that if anybody doesnt like the ideas of "feminism" you are either a "Whiny little white boys, or crybaby caucasians"...am i the only one who this pisses off?

    i mean personally, as a "whiny little white boy", i have ALOT agaist feminism, as i do against all "special intrest" equality groups. its groups like these that are the reason they had to change the PSAT's to include a section that girls would do better on because there was a difference in the scores(i know its petty, but thats just the first example that came to mind). its groups like these that force different standards for different groups to get the SAME jobs.

    now, while the idiot white supremisist in that thread has alot of poits wrong, he does have some right...such as when he talks about "artificial equality". i mean why is it that the physical standards for a woman to get a job as a police officer in connecticut is a joke while the standards for men are quite high? for instance(all numbers gathered from www.policecertification.com - a website for the company that does the physical testing in CT, where i happen to work from time to time):
    a 21 year old male has to do 40 situps in 60 seconds, sit and reach 17.5", benchpress 106% of his weight, and run a mile and a half in 11 mins 49 seconds
    while a 21 year old female has to do only 35 situps in 60 seconds, sit and reach 20", benchpress 65% of her weight, and run a mile and a half in 14:08

    now, look at these standards. they are drastically different, but they HAVE to be to avoid "sex discrimination" law suits. there is nothing fair or just about this. if we are going to do physical assesment, it should be UNIVERSAL(btw, this includes getting rid of the different requirements for different ages). what i want to see is the only fastest strongest cops, only the best coders, only the most proficiant at WHATEVER the job is. down with artificial "equilisation" because it is anything but.
    -8-

    There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who dont.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    356
    btw, try to refrain from flaming too much, as i'm sure there are alot of people who feel strongly about this topic.
    -8-

    There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who dont.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    410
    Well, the military has lowered their qualification levels so that women can complete the course also. Such as during physical tactical exercises. Sure thats all nice and dandy, but think about this. Do you really the military, to be big bad ass killing machines, so that during a time of war, they are strong, and are capable of handling anything physically demanding. Or would you want the military to be 'dumbed down' per se, in the physical aspect. I'd rather have some killing machines, than a bunch of military personnel who do not have the stamina, or strength to complete the mission.
    savIRC :: The Multi-Platform IRC Client v. 1.8 [Released 9.04.02]

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    170
    When people treat women different or try to make women men something is very wrong. This however is not feminism.

    I have read quite alot on feminism and I dare to say that my oppinion is that anyone that isn't a femist is a moron. There are mainly two reasons for this:

    1) Feminism has nothing to do with treating women different. Feminism is not affirmative action.
    2) Feminism is the strong belief that men and women have equal value. Thus they should get payed the same money for the same job. They should get equal attention and help in school and kindergarten and they should be treated with equal respect in their lifes.

    That is the *only* thing feminism is about. If it's anything else, someone is using the word wrong.

    It is sad because feminism when you think about it is something very natural that pretty much anyone can agree to. The problem is that alot of people, both women and men use the word in a broad and inaccurate way resulting in outbrakes of anger like this thread.

    If anyone is interested in feminism as a branch of modern western philosophy there are tons of books dealing with the subject. Read some.
    Mankan

    \"The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.\"
    - Edsger Dijkstra

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    712

    Re: here's a thread gaureteed to cause controversy...

    Originally posted here by 8*B@LL
    ok, i'll admit its inspired elseware(namely http://www.michaelmoore.com/cgi-bin/...&f=17&t=000157 but dont bother trying to read it all...i'm about to sum up the points important to this post). basically what that thread says is that if anybody doesnt like the ideas of "feminism" you are either a "Whiny little white boys, or crybaby caucasians"...am i the only one who this pisses off?
    No... suffice it to say that Michael Moore is an ass. I'd almost compare him to Rush Limbaugh or to Dr. Laura. All in all you will find a lot of people that will identify with them for whatever point, but you're going to find just-as-many that will strongly disagree with him/them.

    All in all, it's all a matter of perspective, I guess... and there's a lot of disinformation out there; no one's immune from circulating it at some point, either, I'd imagine.

    <edit>
    For all those woh like Michael Moore... like I said/insinuated... he has a few good points, I'll concede. I'll just say that he seems to have a habit of taking things to an extremist's point - and, myself, I tend to try to be somewhat moderate/liberal (probably not quite the right words there - it's getting late).

    Suffice it to say that I, personally, always try to imagine things from other people's point of view, given their opinion... I may not always succeed, but I try... and, as I said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion - I don't necessarily have to agree with them.
    </edit>
    \"Windows has detected that a gnat has farted in the general vicinity. You must reboot for changes to take affect. Reboot now?\"

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    170
    Also, when talking about female police officers. Don't you think it's right to have lower physical standars for women so that more women apply? I'm sure that more women it the police force is a good thing. From a psychosocial standpoint or somethign. But I might be wrong.

    Cheers,
    Mankan

    \"The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.\"
    - Edsger Dijkstra

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    712
    Originally posted here by Mankan
    Also, when talking about female police officers. Don't you think it's right to have lower physical standars for women so that more women apply? I'm sure that more women it the police force is a good thing. From a psychosocial standpoint or somethign. But I might be wrong.

    Cheers,
    Well, as far as a basis for "it's good to have more women in the police force" - absolutely not... just because a perception is that a particular job/area/whatever needs to be more balanced so we'll change our requirements - that's almost always a bad thing, IMO.

    And, well... perhaps some requirements should be adjusted... but, IMO, if you are hiring for a physical job, the physical requirements should be "fair" and the same to both (personally, I think that women and men can all run just-as-fast, and lift weights in-proportion to their body weight just-as-equally). Likewise, the pay scales should be equal. If that's not fair, then... *shrug*

    (No, it's NOT fair to say to have to be able to lift a particular amount of weight, or jump so high, I think... that's a disadvantage to those with less body mass, height, etc... men and women alike)
    \"Windows has detected that a gnat has farted in the general vicinity. You must reboot for changes to take affect. Reboot now?\"

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    356

    Re: Re: here's a thread gaureteed to cause controversy...

    Originally posted here by draziw


    No... suffice it to say that Michael Moore is an ass. I'd almost compare him to Rush Limbaugh or to Dr. Laura. All in all you will find a lot of people that will identify with them for whatever point, but you're going to find just-as-many that will strongly disagree with him/them.

    All in all, it's all a matter of perspective, I guess... and there's a lot of disinformation out there; no one's immune from circulating it at some point, either, I'd imagine.

    <edit>
    For all those woh like Michael Moore... like I said/insinuated... he has a few good points, I'll concede. I'll just say that he seems to have a habit of taking things to an extremist's point - and, myself, I tend to try to be somewhat moderate/liberal (probably not quite the right words there - it's getting late).

    Suffice it to say that I, personally, always try to imagine things from other people's point of view, given their opinion... I may not always succeed, but I try... and, as I said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion - I don't necessarily have to agree with them.
    </edit>
    actually, although it happens to be on the forums of his website, he has nothing to do with the thread in any way...it was just in one of his forums full of full-of-themselves idiots.

    anyway, i would like to toss in annother point to the mix here(even though i know its not even close to the correct term to be using): the "rabid feminist".

    if you DO take the time to read through that thread you will find it painfully obvious that some people have a bit of a problem. namely(other than the rasist bastards, but talking about them would require atleast a whole thread of their own), quite a few of those self-proclaimed "feminists". as soon as anybody makes a post disagreeing with them in the slightest, if its a man they flame away as if it was the anti-christ himself telling them to follow him. and THEN they seem to not understand that just because sombody tells you to try to act civil they dont have to be saying "dont dissagree with men".

    i for one HATE trying to talk to sombody as plain abusive as alot of those people acted, especially when i come in with a genuinly non-agressive post, and they feel the need to attack with all that their hate-filled mind can muster. it doesnt matter if its a man or woman on the other side of that computer screen, all that matters is that they are acting like *******s and cant keep it civil.
    -8-

    There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who dont.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    356
    Originally posted here by Mankan
    It is sad because feminism when you think about it is something very natural that pretty much anyone can agree to. The problem is that alot of people, both women and men use the word in a broad and inaccurate way resulting in outbrakes of anger like this thread.

    If anyone is interested in feminism as a branch of modern western philosophy there are tons of books dealing with the subject. Read some.
    i'll admit i havent read up on it myself, i'm just judging from my own personal interactions and observations about people who call themselves feminists.
    -8-

    There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who dont.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    356
    Originally posted here by Mankan
    Also, when talking about female police officers. Don't you think it's right to have lower physical standars for women so that more women apply? I'm sure that more women it the police force is a good thing. From a psychosocial standpoint or somethign. But I might be wrong.
    in what way could it possibly be better to have a police force that, on average, cant run 1.5 miles as fast as it could if the requirements were the same for both sexes? is a slower poliece force somehow helpfull? is a weaker(weight lifting wise) poliece force somehow benificial?

    other than that, i dont see any psychosocial problems with having it predomininatly male. i mean i went to an all male HS and had VERY limitied interactions with girls at all durring those 4 years...did that somehow screw me up? not that i know of. did that screw up my father(who went to the same school 30 years before i did)? not that i know of. does working in a nearly completely male workplace(he's a programmer) screw up my father? not that i know of.

    i guess my point is that having more or less interaction with the oposite sex doesnt really matter all that much in the end; all that really matters is getting the job done.

    oh yes, and let me throw this back at you: who would you rather have write/desigh your antivirus and firewall? the person who got the job because they were the best, or the woman who whas hired in order to fix the "psychosocial" situation in the workplace....i think the answer is clear.
    -8-

    There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who dont.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •