Red Mosquito

If you can't do three pull-ups? Seriously? How many pull-ups do you think women can do?

Also, the military hasn't 'evolved' in any way whatsoever in a vacuum. It's 'evolved' as a male-led organisation of males. To suggest that that is the way it needs to stay is bogus.

I'm still wondering how the Israeli army has survived with all those insufficient and weak women in it seeing how they received preferential treatment?
I realize the US army has fought in many ugly and horrendous wars that were physically demanding and required the soldiers to be in fighting shape etc, but I'm guessing armies such as the one in Israel have similar standards that look towards not endangering fellow soldiers in combat situations (weakest link breaks the chain etc) as well - so how did all those preferentially treated women soldiers get carried by the men for so long over the course of the Israeli army's history without toppling the entire structure?

broken iris wrote:

malice wrote: see - these are ridiculous and highly arbitrary prerequisites to establish, I'm hoping you'll agree - but you see nothing arbitrary in the prerequisites for military service (by which I mean combat training etc) - when they are only what's been accepted as normal by the military because only men have ever participated in this arm of the military.

It's somewhat arbitrary, but I think in this case it's different as the role of the Marines has evolved to more front line combat. In a deployed area everyone must be capable of fighting, even the cooks, so there has to be a high level fitness as the standard and many women are perfectly capable of achieving this and I have no issues with women fighting next to men if they are willing, but combat packs & gun weigh 75-90 pounds. If you cannot do three pullups, you are not going to be able run alongside your counterparts carrying that stuff. It's like being a firefighter. If you cannot drag a 200lb dude with smoke inhalation issues out of a burning building, you should not be one of the people that goes in, and that's who the Marines are.

malice wrote: ALL people are different, and have different capabilities. ALL people are able to discover or create alternate ways of handling the rigors of combat, or life for that matter. humans are able to handle a multitude of various difficult tasks and demanding situations (such as fighting in a war) by using numerous AND VARIED means of approach. therefore the entire argument that women want preferential treatment is bogus because it already assumes the "Norm" is one of male created standards, and there is only THAT way of approach which works.

I don't disagree with any of this, but there are many ways that less physically strong people can serve in the military, even in forward deployed situations: analysts, linguists, supply chain, techs, etc. They might not be Marines, but they can stills serve their country in combat if that is their choice.

nor do I disagree with this reply - the disagreement I have is the same one I've had with snd since we started arguing about it here - he sees feminism as a thinly veiled attempt by women to get 'preferential treatment' which we can label as 'equality' and hope none of you men folk are intelligent enough to see through our big goof on your gender

this is such an extreme (and I have to add: ridiculous) view to take about women, the intentions of feminism, and what 'equality' should be defined as that I can't help but try to point it out when he brings up points about physical standards for service as a marine or whatever.

scenarios such as that one are useful as a lopsided and rather obvious display of how sameness in requirements (being able to perform physical activity X determines capability for job function Y) has already been 'compromised' for those pesky women that insist on being equal and therefore MUST be a valid example of how feminism is just one more way for women to try to have our cake and eat it too.

in as realistic and objective way as I'm able to look at it - there are definitely situations where men in peak physical condition are better suited for specific activities than women in peak physical condition. and I don't see how that will change excepting a bizarre twist in our evolutionary development.

what I was hoping to point out is there are actions that can be taken that do not endanger anyone, and in fact contribute to the strength of a group related to approach and abilities which account for differences and use those differences as benefits that help the entire organization.

other countries are doing this. the US? I don't know because I'm not at all informed about the military, but my sense is there's still a lot of barriers that exist in this type of rigidly male organization that have to be examined and re-purposed if women are to be considered 'equal' within the military. and some of it is related to what we define as 'equal'.

and while I'm pretty sure snd will accuse me of playing another card by mentioning it - it's not any different to me than how black people have been treated, how gay people have been treated, how physically disabled people have been treated and anyone else I've left out who are perfectly capable of contributed in beneficial ways to an otherwise uniform organization (pun was unintentional).

in the case of women, however, we comprise more than half of the population, and make for a more bothersome and irritating (perhaps threatening too?) force, so traditionally male constructed and dominated societies such as the military will have more difficulty in dealing with that - but they have made tremendous strides in other such situations - black men used to not be allowed to fight with the white men etc, gay men used to be much more persecuted - although I know that still goes on, but the changes are in place and will have positive effects as we become more 'comfortable' with gay people in the society.

perception seems to be more than half the argument and all people are perfectly able to see things differently than what the accepted view of the world is currently.

(repeat, repeat, repeat... I dunno, I guess I'll stop posting in this thread - I feel like I'm not saying anything new or contributing to the development of the thread at all.)

malice wrote:I'm still wondering how the Israeli army has survived with all those insufficient and weak women in it seeing how they received preferential treatment?
I realize the US army has fought in many ugly and horrendous wars that were physically demanding and required the soldiers to be in fighting shape etc, but I'm guessing armies such as the one in Israel have similar standards that look towards not endangering fellow soldiers in combat situations (weakest link breaks the chain etc) as well - so how did all those preferentially treated women soldiers get carried by the men for so long over the course of the Israeli army's history without toppling the entire structure?

There are relatively few gender integrated front line units in the Israeli military. Women are still largely relegated to non-combat positions, and the one integrated infantry battalion, Caracal was formed only in 2000.

simple schoolboy wrote:

malice wrote:I'm still wondering how the Israeli army has survived with all those insufficient and weak women in it seeing how they received preferential treatment?
I realize the US army has fought in many ugly and horrendous wars that were physically demanding and required the soldiers to be in fighting shape etc, but I'm guessing armies such as the one in Israel have similar standards that look towards not endangering fellow soldiers in combat situations (weakest link breaks the chain etc) as well - so how did all those preferentially treated women soldiers get carried by the men for so long over the course of the Israeli army's history without toppling the entire structure?

There are relatively few gender integrated front line units in the Israeli military. Women are still largely relegated to non-combat positions, and the one integrated infantry battalion, Caracal was formed only in 2000.

yeah, i was just taking a shot at the idea preferential treatment

malice wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

malice wrote:I'm still wondering how the Israeli army has survived with all those insufficient and weak women in it seeing how they received preferential treatment?
I realize the US army has fought in many ugly and horrendous wars that were physically demanding and required the soldiers to be in fighting shape etc, but I'm guessing armies such as the one in Israel have similar standards that look towards not endangering fellow soldiers in combat situations (weakest link breaks the chain etc) as well - so how did all those preferentially treated women soldiers get carried by the men for so long over the course of the Israeli army's history without toppling the entire structure?

There are relatively few gender integrated front line units in the Israeli military. Women are still largely relegated to non-combat positions, and the one integrated infantry battalion, Caracal was formed only in 2000.

yeah, i was just taking a shot at the idea preferential treatment

who made you the arbiter of military integration?

Alex wrote:

malice wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

malice wrote:I'm still wondering how the Israeli army has survived with all those insufficient and weak women in it seeing how they received preferential treatment?
I realize the US army has fought in many ugly and horrendous wars that were physically demanding and required the soldiers to be in fighting shape etc, but I'm guessing armies such as the one in Israel have similar standards that look towards not endangering fellow soldiers in combat situations (weakest link breaks the chain etc) as well - so how did all those preferentially treated women soldiers get carried by the men for so long over the course of the Israeli army's history without toppling the entire structure?

There are relatively few gender integrated front line units in the Israeli military. Women are still largely relegated to non-combat positions, and the one integrated infantry battalion, Caracal was formed only in 2000.

yeah, i was just taking a shot at the idea preferential treatment

who made you the arbiter of military integration?

'Bu$hleaguer.'

harmless wrote:

Alex wrote:

malice wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

malice wrote:I'm still wondering how the Israeli army has survived with all those insufficient and weak women in it seeing how they received preferential treatment?
I realize the US army has fought in many ugly and horrendous wars that were physically demanding and required the soldiers to be in fighting shape etc, but I'm guessing armies such as the one in Israel have similar standards that look towards not endangering fellow soldiers in combat situations (weakest link breaks the chain etc) as well - so how did all those preferentially treated women soldiers get carried by the men for so long over the course of the Israeli army's history without toppling the entire structure?

There are relatively few gender integrated front line units in the Israeli military. Women are still largely relegated to non-combat positions, and the one integrated infantry battalion, Caracal was formed only in 2000.

yeah, i was just taking a shot at the idea preferential treatment

who made you the arbiter of military integration?

'Bu$hleaguer.'

She knows I'm only kidding (hopefully).

harmless wrote:She knows I'm only kidding (hopefully).

Malice has become more pragmatic about things in the last few years. You're fine.

But in that case, I'm sure more men would support integration if it's done using the Brazilian model.

broken iris wrote:

harmless wrote:She knows I'm only kidding (hopefully).

Malice has become more pragmatic about things in the last few years. You're fine.

no I haven't.

harmless can say whatever he wants though. he's an excellent human

malice wrote:

broken iris wrote:

harmless wrote:She knows I'm only kidding (hopefully).

Malice has become more pragmatic about things in the last few years. You're fine.

no I haven't.

Anyway, I tried to do some marine style pull-ups:



That shit is hard. Doing it the other way, where your palms face back at you, is much easier.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... countries/

broken iris wrote:

malice wrote:

broken iris wrote:

harmless wrote:She knows I'm only kidding (hopefully).

Malice has become more pragmatic about things in the last few years. You're fine.

no I haven't.

Anyway, I tried to do some marine style pull-ups:



That shit is hard. Doing it the other way, where your palms face back at you, is much easier.

When you're trying to be a front line combat marine, "that shit is hard" should be part of the standard.

i'm surprised we had to wait until page 21 in a thread about feminism on RM to include posts about marine-style pull-ups

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler: Hollywood’s imperfect feminists

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/tina_fe ... feminists/

The last time they hosted the Golden Globes, in 2013, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler came in for something new for them: coverage in the tabloid press. They’d joked about Taylor Swift’s tempestuous and much-remarked-upon love life (with Fey telling her to “stay away from Michael J. Fox’s son,” who was onstage as “Mr. Golden Globe” that evening). Swift made it clear that she found the comedians’ actions not just hurtful, but anti-feminist: “You know, Katie Couric is one of my favorite people. Because she said to me she had heard a quote that she loved, that said, ‘There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.’”

This was unusual for its format — celebrities generally hadn’t called the amiable Fey and Poehler out — but not for its content. Indeed, it crystallized a sense in the culture that the pair were somehow doing feminism a disservice through their comedy and public images.

It’s both strange and exceedingly obvious why two of the most explicitly and publicly feminist celebrities (Poehler’s response to Swift included the phrase “I am a feminist”) come in for so much criticism along feminist lines. Many if not most female celebrities tend to dodge questions regarding equal rights, choosing to either express their beliefs in their art or to just leave the matter entirely alone. “I’m not a feminist, but …” has become a cliché — and those who utter it can be appreciated on many grounds, but one doesn’t stake one’s appreciation on whether their further statements are good or bad for a movement they’ve already disavowed. Meanwhile, Poehler runs a YouTube channel intended to inspire young girls, while Fey’s memoir “Bossypants” was in large part about her work creating a “Saturday Night Live” writers’ room that empowered women.



It has historically been difficult, for instance, for Fey’s fans to square her extraordinary achievements in comedy with her choice to portray a character who looks just like her, on “30 Rock,” as borderline unlovable, obsessed with food, and deeply unhappy. Many of her fans, as Rebecca Traister wrote on Salon in 2010, found Fey’s criticism of other women and her portrayal of a single-woman character as a total loser somewhat uncomfortable. Blogger Sady Doyle coined the term “Liz Lemonism” to describe a variety of feminism practiced by straight white women who are deeply concerned with their own oppression and blind to all other varieties. It’s the #solidarityisforwhitewomen argument, the idea that those who already possess social capital and advantages sometimes fight for their own rights while ignoring or mocking others.

This isn’t hair-splitting — if Fey is to be a standard-bearer for modern feminism, it might be useful to hold her public statements and her art up to the light in order to better understand how to move feminism forward. But she never asked to be; nor did Poehler, who disappointingly declined to respond to a question about the controversy over race and “Saturday Night Live’s” hiring practices. They are feminists, sure — but the fact that they are The Feminists is symptomatic of Hollywood’s lack of imagination. They wouldn’t need to be all things to all people if there were more people as outspoken as them on the stage, running and performing in network sitcoms, hosting awards ceremonies.

It’s impossible to think of any two people who so precisely exist at the intersection of fame and outspoken advocacy on behalf of themselves and their gender as Fey and Poehler. But fans of theirs who want to see change in the pair’s rhetorical style should consider not merely that Fey and Poehler are comedians. They also are in an extraordinarily difficult position, one created by the entertainment industry’s unwillingness to let outspoken women on the stage. Whatever they say will get critiqued for its divergence from whatever is most socially conscious far more than would an anti-feminist statement from a pop star.

Maybe they’ll crack a joke that falls short of fans’ expectations Sunday night, or criticize a female celebrity in a way that sets teeth on edge, or act in a manner that’s blinkered by their own experience. All the more reason to seek out more talents from all different backgrounds, not to replace Fey and Poehler’s talents, but to augment them.

Malice have you seen the documentary The Punk Singer about Kathleen Hanna?

VinylGuy wrote:Malice have you seen the documentary The Punk Singer about Kathleen Hanna?

the one that just came out? no - the release dates/showings look incredibly limited - unless it gets to digital format I don't think i'd be able to - too bad, it's right up my alley.

malice wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Malice have you seen the documentary The Punk Singer about Kathleen Hanna?

the one that just came out? no - the release dates/showings look incredibly limited - unless it gets to digital format I don't think i'd be able to - too bad, it's right up my alley.

They have an interest take on the whole Riot grrl movement from the 90s.