"Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

On the true meaning of "reduction ad absurdum"

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#881  Postby Sendraks » Nov 18, 2014 11:20 am

TMB wrote: Suggesting that men should simply change deeply socialized (and fuelled by biology) is simplistic and naive.


If you genuinely cared about men's issues such as male suicide, then you wouldn't be dismissing this suggestion as simplistic and naive nor would you be trying to play it off against society's expectations of a woman's appearance.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#882  Postby TMB » Nov 18, 2014 11:42 am

Nicko wrote:
DarthHelmet86 wrote:And once again the intro physical tests are only to judge base fitness, once you are in the military you must pass the same tests and women are able to do that.


It's a distinction that many don't understand. The initial standards are only to establish that everything is in working order: a basic, somewhat-higher-than-average level of fitness. This just means different things for men and women, so of course there are separate standards. When it comes to specific assignments, the standards are objective and job-specific.

There is of course the question of whether more needs to be done to help women meet the higher objective standards required by combat positions. Here's 2nd Lt. Sage Santangelo's account of her attempt to pass the USMC's Infantry Officer Course.


That was an interesting article. She notes hat despite the fact she did not pass the physical test, just as the other women have not, she still considers that it might be due to lack of adequate training, and with the right training they might be able to match men. This has no basis in fact, depending upon where you set the standard around physical tests or capability of this type, men will perform better than women. Culture does reinforce the biological propensity and this was noted when the performance gap between men and women in athletics lessened a few decades ago. However then the gap stabilised and has remained constant. There appear to be enough women with the interest and training to perform as close to their potential as the men do. If they dropped the standard of the officers course, some women will pass. It's possible that sme women will make the grade anyway, however the standards have been set to get the best of the best, and at this stage these are all men. Just as the Olympics selects the very best athletes, in a gender neutral scenario these would all be men.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#883  Postby TMB » Nov 18, 2014 11:46 am

Sendraks wrote:
TMB wrote: Suggesting that men should simply change deeply socialized (and fuelled by biology) is simplistic and naive.


If you genuinely cared about men's issues such as male suicide, then you wouldn't be dismissing this suggestion as simplistic and naive nor would you be trying to play it off against society's expectations of a woman's appearance.


I do I just don't think that things get addressed by wishful thinking and underestimating the nature of the problem offering simplistic and unrealistic positions like the one I responded to achieves very little. It also achieves very little when you cherry pick my posts and chuck in another red herring.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#884  Postby Sendraks » Nov 18, 2014 11:49 am

TMB wrote: She notes hat despite the fact she did not pass the physical test, just as the other women have not, she still considers that it might be due to lack of adequate training, and with the right training they might be able to match men. This has no basis in fact, depending upon where you set the standard around physical tests or capability of this type, men will perform better than women.


What she is saying that if women train harder, they might be able to pass the test.
Basically she's saying women need to train harder than men to match men.

Understand?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#885  Postby TMB » Nov 18, 2014 11:50 am

Sendraks wrote:
TMB wrote:If you were open to the idea I think you could easily argue a case for males having a biological propensity to engage in high risky behaviors of this this particular type, relative to females.


I'm sure you could, indeed I've already intimated that such a propensity might exist. The extent to which that is more of a factor over various other social factors is much harder to determine. Without a sizeable amount of research material at your disposal, all that can be offered is your conjecture and given that is tainted by your very obvious bias, I'm not convinced you can pursue this logically.

TMB wrote: Note that getting pregnant is a high risk activity of a different type.

Yes and because it is of a different type, it is not a comparator with men engaging in "extreme sports" or other such activities.

TMB wrote:Gender equality is about opportunity and outcomes, that allow us to measure how each gender fares.


Equality is about treating people the same in spite of their differences.
Equality is also about recognising that people are different and sometimes these differences have to be accommodated.

I realise that you want equality to mean something different, because that is the crux of your argument. I would suggest that if you want to discuss equality policy and legislation and have a logical debate about it, you start another thread. No logical discussion can take place as long as you're trying to drag everything down to your illogical lowest common denominator of trying to demonise women.

TMB wrote:If men are better equipped to be soldiers, or athletes or sports,en, or firemen, they might be getting exploited to take advantage of these abilities without getting equal redress.

That is a matter for their employers then, yes?
After all, being a soldier is a decidedly higher risk activity than being a premier league footballer, but the former gets paid decidedly less. Then inequality in pay there has NOTHING to do with a gender issue at all. If you're so concerned about men in high risk roles getting fairly recompensed for what they do, then you're barking up the wrong tree implying that women are the problem.

So lets see how many worthwhile discussions could we be having in other threads which I've suggested you start. Issues you claim to care about.

Male Suicide
Equality Policy
Equality in redress for men undertaking high risk roles vs those in higher paid lower risk professions.


And?
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#886  Postby Sendraks » Nov 18, 2014 12:00 pm

TMB wrote:I do I just don't think that things get addressed by wishful thinking and underestimating the nature of the problem offering simplistic and unrealistic positions like the one I responded to achieves very little.


No one is suggesting that such things get addressed through wishful thinking. Perhaps, if you were genuinely interested in how such problems might be resolved, you'd be prepared to discuss them. Instead you persist in trying to pin the blame for such problems on women in any way you can?

TMB wrote: It also achieves very little when you cherry pick my posts and chuck in another red herring.

There is no red herring in suggesting that in order to tackle many of the problems which men face, the behaviour of men needs to change. This is neither naïve nor simplistic. Understanding the levers which can drive behaviour change is a complex issue and very worthy of discussion by anyone who genuinely cared about such issues.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#887  Postby Sendraks » Nov 18, 2014 12:00 pm

TMB wrote:

And?


are you going to start threads to discuss the issues you so claim to care about or just stay here looking for evermore illogical ways to use them to bash women?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#888  Postby TMB » Nov 18, 2014 12:10 pm

Sendraks wrote:
TMB wrote: She notes hat despite the fact she did not pass the physical test, just as the other women have not, she still considers that it might be due to lack of adequate training, and with the right training they might be able to match men. This has no basis in fact, depending upon where you set the standard around physical tests or capability of this type, men will perform better than women.


What she is saying that if women train harder, they might be able to pass the test.
Basically she's saying women need to train harder than men to match men.

Understand?


Read it again, she definitely is not saying. She specifically says that because of the dual standards imposed upon women and men, women are expected and expect to perform lower. She says that if the same standards were imposed from the beginning in the marines and, it seems, in life in general, women would then meet the standard. Except this is not borne out by experience in things like athletics where an absolute metric of time/distance exists. Women train just as hard as men to sprint, jump, shot putt etc and the standards are different. I would imagine that if women were measured by the same standard as men all he way through, it would simply eliminate more women at each stage in the process.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#889  Postby Sendraks » Nov 18, 2014 12:32 pm

TMB wrote:Read it again, she definitely is not saying.


She is definitely saying that she thinks if women train hard enough they can build the necessary strength.

TMB wrote:She specifically says that because of the dual standards imposed upon women and men, women are expected and expect to perform lower. She says that if the same standards were imposed from the beginning in the marines and, it seems, in life in general, women would then meet the standard.


Yes she is saying that and this seems to be a perfectly logical conclusion to reach. She is saying that if the same standards were imposed, women might be able to reach the IFC requirements.

TMB wrote:Except this is not borne out by experience in things like athletics where an absolute metric of time/distance exists.


This is both illogical and invalid for the issue in question.
There is a specific bar of performance which candidates are expected to meet in order to qualify for the IFC. The bar is a fixed point of performance, the testers are not looking for the "fastest" or "strongest" performers, only those that can meet the criteria.

If the IFC criteria were to test all the recruits and only pick the 10 who were fastest and strongest, I agree that it is unlikely that any women would make the cut. As it stands, that is not how a performance metric works.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#890  Postby TMB » Nov 18, 2014 1:34 pm

Sendraks wrote:
TMB wrote:

And?


are you going to start threads to discuss the issues you so claim to care about or just stay here looking for evermore illogical ways to use them to bash women?


If you think threads need to be caged for other topics, feel free to do so. If you think we are off topic, then spend less the making irrational posts and strawmanning.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#891  Postby Sendraks » Nov 18, 2014 2:19 pm

TMB wrote:If you think threads need to be caged for other topics, feel free to do so. If you think we are off topic, then spend less the making irrational posts and strawmanning.


I am doing neither.

You keep raising these issues, operate under the pretence that you care about them, but are unwilling to start proper focused discussions on them. You clearly have no interest in discussing this issues outside of the context of bashing women.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#892  Postby tolman » Nov 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Sendraks wrote:
TMB wrote:Read it again, she definitely is not saying.


She is definitely saying that she thinks if women train hard enough they can build the necessary strength.

TMB wrote:She specifically says that because of the dual standards imposed upon women and men, women are expected and expect to perform lower. She says that if the same standards were imposed from the beginning in the marines and, it seems, in life in general, women would then meet the standard.


Yes she is saying that and this seems to be a perfectly logical conclusion to reach. She is saying that if the same standards were imposed, women might be able to reach the IFC requirements.

She is saying that she thinks some women may be able to meet the standards.

She wasn't saying that 'women as in 'all women' or 'women marines in proportion to their number compared to male marines' would be able to meet the standard.

Isn't the whole point of feminism (in the sense of egalitarianism) that women (or people in general) shouldn't be assessed as members of a group but as individuals?

As far as discrimination at the level of selection for a role is concerned, it shouldn't matter to feminists whether women are not equal in numbers with men in a particular role if selection criteria are fairly applied and are not specifically chosen to unreasonably exclude women.

An imbalance may be relevant to a wider view even if criteria do seem reasonable, since that may indicate some other factors discouraging women from wanting to fill the role, or obstacles in the way of their developing the abilities to meet the criteria.

One of the issues with some approaches to feminism is that some people view 'discrimination' as essentially a default explanation for any imbalances, (or, at least, any imbalances they consider undesirable) with proof to the contrary being required for them to think otherwise, even when proof to the contrary is essentially impossible to provide given the multitude of possible factors.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#893  Postby Sendraks » Nov 18, 2014 4:17 pm

tolman wrote:
She is saying that she thinks some women may be able to meet the standards.


Clearly she is saying some women. I doubt anyone here is operating under the delusion that this applies to "all" women, anymore than meeting the IFC requirements applies to "all" men either.

tolman wrote:Isn't the whole point of feminism (in the sense of egalitarianism) that women (or people in general) shouldn't be assessed as members of a group but as individuals?

Yes I agree and that is consistent with what I recognise (from a policy professional perspective) equality policy to be about.

tolman wrote:As far as discrimination at the level of selection for a role is concerned, it shouldn't matter to feminists whether women are not equal in numbers with men in a particular role if selection criteria are fairly applied and are not specifically chosen to unreasonably exclude women.

Again I agree. I don't believe the article gives the impression that anyone thinks the IFC criteria unreasonably exclude woman. The issue being raised that woman are not trained, through the earlier military careers, in such a way that would build the necessary physical fitness to pass the bar set for entry the IFC. Of course we've no way of knowing that is true until such time as a suitable sample size of women have gone through whatever the necessary levels of training are in there earlier careers, to see whether they can pass the bar or not.

tolman wrote:One of the issues with some approaches to feminism is that some people view 'discrimination' as essentially a default explanation for any imbalances, (or, at least, any imbalances they consider undesirable) with proof to the contrary being required for them to think otherwise, even when proof to the contrary is essentially impossible to provide given the multitude of possible factors.

And I would agree that in the requirements for entry to the IFC are not "discriminatory." The are necessary to meet the requirements of the military.

It is being suggested that there may be discrimination in military training prior to that point which disadvantages women in being optimally trained for undergoing selection for the IFC. This may be one of those scenarios where woman (in the military) are not treated different from men and consequently this actually puts them at a disadvantage later on if they want to apply for things like the IFC, because they need a harder training regimen.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#894  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Nov 18, 2014 4:43 pm

And we still don't have an example of female privilege.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13490
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#895  Postby Thommo » Nov 18, 2014 4:47 pm

Do you actually want them? There are loads.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#896  Postby Sendraks » Nov 18, 2014 5:37 pm

Thommo wrote:Do you actually want them? There are loads.


Well the ideal would be for TMB to post them. He's the expert after all.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#897  Postby Thommo » Nov 18, 2014 6:09 pm

Fair enough, my offer stands if anyone wants some examples later.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#898  Postby Sendraks » Nov 18, 2014 6:11 pm

Thommo wrote:Fair enough, my offer stands if anyone wants some examples later.


Oh definitely. I imagine yours will be pretty good.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#899  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Nov 18, 2014 11:46 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Thommo wrote:Do you actually want them? There are loads.


Well the ideal would be for TMB to post them. He's the expert after all.


He's already given us the "Wimminz work less (and are paid less for the work they do and, as a result, are dependent on the voluntary generosity of men. Such privilege, being a dependent.)
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13490
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ironic Misandry" (and idiotic feminism)

#900  Postby TMB » Nov 18, 2014 11:51 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Thommo wrote:Do you actually want them? There are loads.


Well the ideal would be for TMB to post them. He's the expert after all.


Another rational post from you - not. And its ad hominem to boot. Why dont you set your own standards for rationalism instead of being held back by lower ones that I note you adhere to?
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest