In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
And hilariously, in some regions up to 60% of men are deemed unfit for military service. So hardly every man is actually fit either.
To further go on about that, it's most likely not that people in those regions are less fit than others. There is a lot of politicking going on when conscription is in place. They rise their standards because they don't want more soldiers than they are willing to pay for. This leads to many perfectly able men being refused. On the other hand, in times when the military wants more soldiers, they will let people in who will have a hard time going through the training. This also makes it hard for people who want to enter the army because they might get unlucky and be refused for arbitrary reasons.
And yeah, the fact that civil conscription isn't targetting women is casting doubts on the idea that women being regarded as weak is the primary cause for this state of affairs.
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
You could also find places in the military for physically "unfit" people, no? I don't see why a logistics officer, a truck driver or a drone pilot have to be able to march with a 30kg backpack. Tank drivers can't be above a certain height for example, making women actually more fit for this task than men on average.
And then there are cases with guys who are honestly unable to do their service COUG Hbusterknee COUGH being refused the denial and told be "fix it" and come back next year.
Bull-fucking-shit.
How the hell do you fix a cartilage that has gone wrong? Even after doctors say that "it's about good as it can get"`?
United Earth
Thought about putting this into Women's Issues, but then I decided that this really isn't an issue solely about women and more about general thing, so here we go.
Equity Feminism vs. Gender Feminism
Which one do people in general want? Equal treatment, without trying to enforce equal outcome or do people want to force equal outcome for everything when it comes to men and women?
I kinda with Equity Feminism was the mainstream Feminism, it's something I can agree a lot more than with the current mainstream Gender Feminism.
edited 6th Mar '14 1:22:03 AM by Mandemo
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Equity feminism (equal legal rights) was the original first-wave feminism, as practised by the suffragettes and so on. Then it turned out that there was a considerable amount of discrimination against women outside the legal system as well, and the second and third waves kicked off. You're basically asking the feminist movement to rewind itself by eighty years.
Sommers is AEI, and her work is the usual Koch Foundation bullshit geared at bringing America back to the Gilded Age when women and minorities knew their place.
edited 6th Mar '14 1:49:17 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
There is difference between "treat equally" and "preferential treatment" which seems to be mainstream feminism these days.
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
One seeks to create equal respect and treatment.
Other seeks to gain preferential treatment on grounds of being "victims" and always sticking to victim narrative.
I think there they are pretty mutually exclusive.
"Always" is the problematic straw man there.
I am yet to hear argument that does not rely on victim narrative.
United Earth
I didn't know "argument" was uncountable.
And that is straw manning.
By that logic, any attempt to call out oppression would qualify.
edited 6th Mar '14 3:38:16 AM by KingZeal
And here you are strawmanning by constantly claiming "strawmanning".
I am going to start to ignore you completely, there is no point in discussion/argument with you. No, I am not going to post long rant of your dishonest argument style, only have it dismissed it as "strawmanning" and being called misogynist.
If someone else is interested in discussion, they are welcome to discuss.
If you didn't strawman, I wouldn't have to call you out on it.
But ignore if you like. I'll. continue picking apart any fallacies you make though.
By definition, "preferential" is better than "equal", so they are mutually exclusive.
Depends on the context. Affirmative action is preferential hiring, but it exists because of a perceived oppression.
Preferential treatment to counterbalance oppression/inequality is still not equal treatment. It is compensation.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
No it's trying to treat the symptoms of a deeper problem.
Oh really when?
Most activists don't think preferential treatment is a perfect solution, either. However, the idea is to minimize the damage while the sources of the problem are dealt with.
Hence why I was saying it's not mutually exclusive.
edited 6th Mar '14 5:01:24 AM by KingZeal
Issue is that the bandaid "fix", which is preferential and not equal treament, will not go away once the problem it tries to cover goes.
If the narrative is kept on victim narrative, AKA women can only get those high paying jobs or whatever because they are being compensated, even if this is no longer case, it's preferential treatment disguised as "fixing" a problem.
It solves nothing really, only makes solving the problem harder by creating resentment and creates danger of creating a preferential system and thus undermining the entire "equality for all" goal.
edited 6th Mar '14 5:20:53 AM by Mandemo
Can you prove this?
It solves nothing really, only makes solving the problem harder by creating resentment and creates danger of creating a preferential system and thus undermining the entire "equality for all" goal.
Resentment aside (which is really not the oppressed's problem—if they're being oppressed, they're being resented anyway), this is now a Perfect Solution Fallacy.
For example, this is the same argument that was used to delay the abolition of slavery. Pro-slavery groups (and even some abolitionists) argued that slavery needed to continue until there was a way to avoid the negative consequences of immediate abolition. Their argument was that immediately freeing the slaves would create resentment amongst whites, force economic poverty on the freed slaves, and create other social problems that would stick around even after slavery ended.
The thing is, they were totally right. But, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that abolition "solved nothing".
edited 6th Mar '14 5:26:41 AM by KingZeal
No, the other one.
Preferental treatment is method to try to reach the goal for equal treatment, but is in itself mutually exclusive to equality, and it can't exist in a completely equal situation.
I think it's something that at most should be applied very carefully. It does further the idea of victimisation and reduces perceived agency by drawing attention to the idea that they can't do it on their own, and require help. And if it means lower standards for one group of people, it means a lower standard of result for whatever the treatment is for.
In less general terms, say you have a job in the engineering field, which has a higher percentage of men working in it. You prioritise women to even it out. If you do it on an "all else being equal" level, it's probably fine. It'll bring more diversity in, which just in itself may have a positive effect. It could also be more chaotic, with a detrimental result. Either way, there's still a sense that they're just as good, so they deserve the position just as much, with some grudges about having to only be just as good, rather than better, to get the position. Not perfect, but likely better than the alternative.
On the other hand, if you have a lower entry requirement for women to get more of them in, you're going to get lower qualified people working in the field, which is detrimental. A standard isn't something that costs to reach up to. It's something that costs when you fall short. Somewhat related, and perhaps better in some cases, is to reexamine the standard and see if it's biased in itself, or see what parts of it is really necessary for the job.
The view people will have on it will also be significantly worse, and if the productive result of the job proves to be reduced, it will reinforce the idea that women are bad at it, likely leading to reduced opportunities for them. It will also reinforce the idea that they just can't do it on their own, and are inherently second-class citizens. I don't think the risks are worth the reward in that case.
Check out my fanfiction!
Well, if it's mandatory, everyone is regarded as potentially fit. If it's voluntary, the exceptional individuals are. So there's certainly a thought that women are weaker than men. Which is true to some extent, if you count genders as a whole.
Check out my fanfiction!