cmdrjones wrote:Where do you come from dude?
Women USED to shoot all the time, especially in more rural areas, I'll grant.
SOME women used to shoot – in Europe, which largely lacks a shooting culture, it was rare for any man outside the military to have serious experience in shooting, much less the women. That was more a pursuit for the upper classes who has access to firearms and game preserves. Peasants and serfs are not typically allowed serious weapons.
In the US, correct, women in rural areas or on the frontier shooting wasn't uncommon but it was quite rare in urban areas as far back as you care to go. Not unknown, but rare. There are many accounts of women hunting throughout history, including where you might not expect it like subsistence hunter-gatherer groups. One can select examples from all over but that doesn't contradict the fact that
in general men have been the hunters/shooters and women the gatherers. Largely because it's a lot easier to chase yams and greens when you're 8 months pregnant than to try to chase deer or rabbits when you're that far along in pregnancy. It's the same reasons that you tend to see men do the big butchering jobs involving disjointing something the size of a deer or cow (or larger) before turning the results over to the women for furthering processing – it's not that women
can't, but biology makes that division of labor much more sensible the more primitive your technology.
Well, bravo, we now have technology – sharp steel knives instead of knapped flint, mechanized slicing/dicing tools, grinders, specialists in butchering and packaging and cooking... we've leveled the playing field. Men no longer have to expend their energy on hunting/killing/butchering/plowing/harvesting and, thanks to our modern tools, women can take on the burden of some of those tasks now that brute strength is not such a factor
I'd argue that shooting skills are undergoing a renaissance amongst women and that once (pre-1960s) they were common in the general population, waned and are now becoming fashionable again for women.
Common in
what population? New York City? I doubt it. Sure,
on the frontier women learned how to shoot but that was from necessity, not innate desire. Isolated homesteads needed all the adults (defined pretty loosely, 10 or 12 might be considered adult enough for these purposes) able to deal with vermin, defend the household, and obtain food when necessary. Likewise, a lot of frontiersmen had to learn to cook, clean, mend clothes, and do other forms of “women's work” if there weren't enough women around to get it all done. Circumstances forced a more egalitarian division of work, but that wasn't entirely by choice.
Your other points are noted, but i'll caveat them by bringing in large numbers. yes tehre are lots of metro-dudes nowadays I wouldn't trust with a gun, but we're talking about the military, so it's mandatory.
What does being a “metro-dude” or not have to do with being in the military or not? Or are you under the delusion that every man in the military is some ballsy over-muscled he-man? What does any of that have to do with the ability to shoot or not?
And yes women CAN get a jump in spatial skills through training, but many of them choose to skate by.
Because 1) society expects them to have poor spatial abilities and 2) they are not in a situation where they are forced to improve.
It's sort of like all the comedy in movies and the like about men being clueless about taking care of infants. If an adult male can't feed a baby (with a bottle, of course) or change a diaper it's not because he's unable to, it's because he hasn't learned how to do it. And we live in a society where many men chose to “skate by” and child-raising are skills arguably more important to the human race right now than whether or not you can shoot a bull's eye at 100 meters.
and yes there are plenty of women on either end of the bell curve, but there are far MORE men on either end of the bell curve
So? How does that refute any of my points?
As an example: 1% of women in the US is 1,500,000 people – would you discourage that many women from pursuing something they have the aptitude for merely because they're on the far end of the curve? Why? Why discard the skills and abilities of one and half million people? I'm sure the percentage of men who could ever qualify for a SEAL team is much, much lower than that, yet we do not discourage men in the military with interest from pursuing that as far as their abilities will permit. There are many examples where society relies on the skills and attributes of a tiny percentage of the population for certain critical functions. The notion we'd disregard
half the population because only a fraction of them have the aptitude is ludicrous.
Yes, there are some things were biology makes a difference. For example, I'd expect a woman to have about as much chance of qualifying for a SEAL team as a man would have of spontaneously lactating to feed a newborn. We can't construct the rules for that sort of outlier. For most endeavors, though, cops and firefighters and combat specialists there are a certain percentage of people who qualify who just happen to be female. We should use those willing and qualified in those capacities.
So, what are you saying? Women shouldn't be allowed near birth control? Their only proper role in society is walking wombs and baby machines?
No, as I said above, i'm for freedom, if women want to have 0 or 50, doesn't matter to me, i'd just rather not be forced to pay for it either way.
From my viewpoint, that is very foolish.
First of all, you have some interest in your neighbor's children receiving proper education and care while growing up. People with an education are less likely to turn to crime to survive and I for one would prefer my neighbors' children to be professionals like doctors and accountants than thieves. Second, you have an interest in their basic health because healthy contribute more to a society than sickly or crippled people, and are less of a drain on resources. We can't prevent every illness and disability but failure to prevent what we can prevent is penny wise and pound foolish.
Second, a woman who has 50 children is not going to be a healthy woman. Child-bearing takes a toll on even the strongest and healthiest of women over time. 50 kids is not healthy, arguably it's abuse even if it's self-imposed. I have to wonder about the mental health of a woman desiring 20 children these days, much less 50. Needless to say, any coercion to that sort of reproduction by a women is morally repugnant.
Now, what do I think is IDEAL for society? Well, well, that's another question. I'd rather the role of motherhood was honored for its absolute vital position that it is, and that women in general recognize the cost-benefit and opportunity costs involved with the "modern" lifestyle.
We live on a planet that arguably holds 2-4 times as many people as it can sustain long-term. It would do both our species and the planet's ecosystem considerable long-term good to NOT maintain a replacement rate of reproduction for a couple generations. Sure, there will be issues with that, but there would also be some butt-ugly issues with breeding to the point either starvation, war, disease, famine, or some combination knocks down our numbers.
We have many accounts, even in the mainstream feminist media, of women decrying childlessness, spinsterhood, man-boys, delayed or broken marriage, lack of respect for women (the end of chivalry etc.), the rise of pornography, being left with a Sexual marketplace that leave them very few choices besides serial monogamy, outright sluttery, or complete abstinence, the difficulties of being a single mom, all without even acknowledging the role that feminism writ large had in helping to create and/or exacerbate these same problems.
And yet, earlier, you declared that if women had complete reproductive control they'd opt not to have children. Which is it?
The truth is that most women do want a kid or a few of them, and society beats that into their heads with a sledgehammer as being a good thing. The childless woman is held up as a weeping, emotionally devastated object of pity – which is at odds with
most women I know who
chose not to have kids (as opposed to wanting them and coming up infertile, but even some of those come to terms with the situation).
I think motherhood should be honored, but not as the ONLY road for a woman, the ONLY meaningful option. Praise of motherhood all too easily becomes not an option for motherhood but a requirement for it... and I don't think that's healthy for our species in our present circumstances.
Even aside from that – raising a couple of kids typically takes up only about 1/4 of the average woman's lifespan these days. What do you propose she do with the
rest of those years? Knit baby-booties and sit at home with nothing to do? There's a
reason a lot of female politicians start their careers 10-15 years later than the men – they're busy having kids those years but
after that's largely over they pursue something else to do with their time and energy.
cmdrjones wrote:Broomstick wrote:Not to diss hand-to-hand combat, which still has a role, modern combat is about more than physical strength. Women are able to shoot just as well as a man and function quite well in sniping roles. It's a level playing field in aviation, and women combat pilots have proven every bit as capable as their male counterparts.
You're focusing solely on one attribute: raw physical strength. There's a lot more to handling danger and hazards than that.
All true. I agree. My observation of women being snipers is that they are more patient and willing to wait for the "perfect" shot, but have problems with the physicalty required to SET UP the "perfect" shot. i.e. lay in this field covered with biting insects in your own piss for 3 days until you get what you came for...
As I am in no way an expert on sniping I can't really address much about that, other than to say that cultural attitudes about a women's role having cleanliness and cleaning a high priority might factor into that. Certainly, there is no apparent difference between the tolerance of girls and boys as infants for filth and bodily wastes.
The follow up question is: For society is it WORTH IT to train our best and brightest women and put them in dangerous situations just to prove a point that anybody with one whit of historical knowledge knew was true anyway?
It depends on how many and how great the need.
For combat pilots, the necessary combination of physical and mental attributes is rare enough that it makes no sense to discard a significant number of applicants based solely on gender, especially when gender has no impact on their ability to fulfill that role. For something like a submarine, close confinement for months of a mixed-sex crew can lead to some potentially very ugly situations, which is why society has deemed it expedient to only field same-sex crews (the exceptions would be the very largest of modern subs, when people are not in such close quarters). However, there is now apparently a large enough pool of female Navy personnel that fielding an all-female sub crew is now reasonable to discuss without lowering standards – that doesn't mean we'll do it, only that it might make a lot of sense. It's an
option, but since we aren't desperately in need of more sub crews that might stay on the back burner for awhile. On the other hand, if we were in the middle of a shooting war involving subs I think we'd see all-female as well as all-male sub crews being fielded these days, just as in WWII the military trained a crapload of women to fly planes – there was a never-ending demand for pilots and it didn't make sense to discard a bunch merely because they were women, nevermind a society far more restrictive in regards to gender roles.
Which was nothing compared to the Soviets, where women were snipers in active combat and driving tanks because there was such a personnel shortage and the need was so desperate.
At other times, society may not have a desperate need based strictly on resources but determines expanding the pool of candidates and people in that role to be a good thing. An example of this is the loosening of requirements for police work – I remember a time when women
could not be police officers. Never. Sure, metermaids, radio dispatch, but never, ever, and actual cop (I have an aunt who tried for
years to get on the St. Louis police force with no luck). Then after the 1960's and civil rights and a lot of social unrest society decided that a more diverse police force would be a good thing, so they lowered height requirements, removed gender restrictions, and ethnic barriers. Now, no one thinks twice about a cop who is female or Latino or black or all of the above.
Even more gratuitous was the bullhsit about
mail carriers – oh, the hoopla when we started getting female mailmen! What ever were we going to call them? Truth is, no one gives a fuck if they're called “mail carriers” or “female mailmen”, now THAT was a stupid and needless restriction on employment. How is a woman less capable than a man of driving a jeep and stuffing envelopes into a box?
cmdrjones wrote:Point of order: Broomstick is a dudette.
Ok... whoops
Not a problem – I am frequently mistaken for a man on line and do not take offense.
Our modern economy is based on the assumption that women will be in the workforce, and wouldn't even function if women of childrearing age and tried to be housewives. Raising a family on one income, unless it is one of a relative minority of good middle-class jobs, is very difficult if not impossible. Especially given the condition that the kids are supposed to have a chance of going to college.
What's happened to real wages since 1973? Why do you think that is so?
If women left the workforce en masse that would be a reduction in the supply of labor, yes, what happens to something when the supply of it goes DOWN?
In theory that's one thing, but I tell you, removing women from the workforce is going to really
suck for female-headed households and/or women who don't have a man to support them.
My father was raised by a single mother in the 1920's. At a time when she was paid
less than half for doing the exact same work as the male accountants at the firm and with ZERO chance of ever advancing to partner. It was all legal, accepted, and normal – and it sucked for dad and his brother and their mother and their aunt and niece who were
also being supported by my grandmother. Who, again, was paid
less than half of any man doing the
exact same work.
For all the problems of the modern world I find today's world MUCH more equitable than what my father's family faced in the 1920's.
How much student loan debt has the population of the US taken on? Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing with regards to the millenial generations earning prospects?
Student loan debt is a hell of a tangent for this thread, don't you think. I mean, the topic is a worthwhile discussion but you might want to start a separate thread for that.
So man-as-sole-breadwinner just isn't going to work. The free market has spoken and housewives aren't what it wants.
"For now," said the lacedaemonian...
The truth is that there have ALWAYS been women who worked, and always a number of women who did “men's work” (usually out of necessity but sometimes out of desire). The women's contributions, however, have not always been valued.
I would prefer there to be more
options for people, rather than requirements, and more praise for those who take the more unusual path and not just for those doing the typical thing.
So women HAVE to have maternity leave and day care to have children?
Yes, the
average woman needs that – don't just point to the paragons (who typically also have greater financial means to employ people to help her do the work).
There's a reason why giving birth is called “labor”. A women
should have time to recover from what is either some of the hardest work a human is called upon to do, or to recover from major abdominal surgery. Sure, some can stand right up and go back to work – some people can amputate one of their own limbs or remove their own appendix without anesthesia but I wouldn't advocate that as a societal standard!
YES, CHILD CARE IS REQUIRED! We don't always
call it that, but it is not mentally healthy for a human adult to be in charge of a child or children 24/7 without relief. Even full time mothers employ sitters, take turns watching each other's children, send the kid's to grandma's or aunts/uncles for a bit... Again, the nature of woman's work and raising children is not always acknowledged by society. SOME sort of child care arrangement IS required for raising a human being – lack of it leads to problems like kids home alone for prolonged periods (something society now strongly condemns) or, in extreme cases, women snapping and killing their own children.
The question is whether women are left to cobble together arrangements and, in the case of the poor, struggle to pay for help or whether society values raising decent citizens enough to help out with that. That doesn't necessarily mean government-assigned nannies. It could encompass everything from government licensing and certification of professional caretakers to providing a subsidy to help pay for such care. That doesn't mean every parent is going to go that route, but not everyone has an abundance of relatives and friends who are able to help.
If you rescinded the mandatory nature of taxation and allowed people to send their tax dollars whereever they wanted, nice progressive minded people would surely fund all of the health care and maternity leave anybody could ever need, right?
That used to be the rationale for the government NOT getting involved in feeding the poor... then the Great Depression hit and the charity dried up. People were, literally, starving. That's the problem with relying on the private sector and/or charity – sometimes when the need is greatest the funding is least.
I agree with you that we DO have a catch 22 at the moment, a welfare state that has put a bandaid on poverty for 60 years while simultaneously degrading the very population upon which it depends to sustain it, and using that degradation for justifying it's continued existence and even expansion!
That “band-aid” beats the hell out of people literally starving to death in the streets or being forced to steal just to survive – which were real things before the FDR administration stepped in. Tell me how that would be better than the current situation?
So we need a new answer- but if the new answer is going to work it will involve people that don't have children paying for the education and protection and care of other people's children. There are important reasons why I would want to pay for other people's children in my capacity as a taxpayer. But can you perceive these reasons?
Yes, and I agree with you, I just don't agree with using government FORCE to get that result, there are easier, more elegant ways.
Excuse me, have you studied history at all?
We have public education because before we didn't few of the public received education.
We have forced taxation because when we relied on “volunteer” funding (see Articles of Confederation and The Whiskey Rebellion) insufficient funds were donated to run a viable government.
We have food stamps because charity and the private sector are not a reliable last-resort to prevent starvation.
Some of those “easier, more elegant ways” have been tried and found wanting.
I also choose responsibility as well... I don't hold women to the same standards as men, to do so would be cruel and idiotic. Otherwise, the phrase "women and children first" would have no meaning.
What are you saying here? You NEVER hold a woman to the same standard as a man, for anything or any reason? That is, frankly, insulting. Outside of a very few biological issues (brute strength, lactation, etc) that is bullshit. Where those biological limitations do not apply the same standards should apply to all.
As far as “woman and children first” - I'd amend that to
civilian women and children. That phrase should not apply to a female cop, a female fire-fighter, or a female ship captain.
