- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Outstanding comment and insight!
" We are not those kind of women; we are the kind of women you like!”
Why cater to this guy? He has has already stated he knows and means exactly what he is saying, At least value he knows himself better than any of us would.
The internet is not a place to truly understand people. For instance, you know I’ve been telling shoe jokes for months, but the truth is I just like the personification for kicks. In my ‘real-life’ I own two heels for special occasion and some sneaks and boots.I am very low-maintaince. I, however, will continue to tell shoe jokes. It pleases me. Lol. Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving, kh. RL is calling this week.
who wants to be called a soccer mom anyway? That term is as old as Bob Dole
Live, and learn?
I was a swabbie. Would I have to look at feminine hygiene dispensers?
The problem could be that there aren't many 'soccer moms' that hang out in here, so your posts are taken in the wrong light. I would think that 99.9% of the ladies in here would never even see themselves as the butt of your research, and be happy to assume that we are not talking about them, but backing them up. They should be just as upset with the numbers, and not with you.
Oh, well.
Maybe we are from Mars...and Venus is never going to be inhabitable.
My guess is that they scored on this just fine...since my experience is that 'they' have been busting my nuts without any trouble, ever since I noticed that there was a difference between us! ;-)
During operations in Panama, female truck drivers broke down in tears and refused to move their truck further forward when they learned there might be snipers ahead. They were not court-martialed for cowardice or refusing orders, because, golly-gee-whiz, it wouldn't be right to hold women to the same standards as a man.
The Redondo Run, once a hallmark of achievement at the Academy, was eliminated after men continued to succeed - but women failed. Can't have women crying over their failures now, can we?
And the "obstacle course"? Dumbed down. Too many women couldn't get through it. And we're not talking about HARD stuff, even. You know the rope swing over the mud pit? Apparently women's inferior spatial reasoning skills and utter lack of anything resembling upper body strength made that too tough for them. Too many wound up in the mud, and that meant they got laughed at, and holy smokes! You can't laugh at a woman just because she's incompetent!
Most telling was a study done by the Navy regarding, not the ability of women to do various shipboard damage control tasks, but to gauge the effectiveness of Navy training. As I recall, the sample size was pretty large - nearly 4000 people with over 1000 females. The idea was to test all the trainees on the tasks to establish a baseline ability, then run them through the training course and test them again to see how much the training had improved them. Some of the tasks tested were moving a litter between decks, moving P250 pumps, handling fire hoses and torquing engine bolts. Altogether there were 10-12 tasks that were rated. The P250s are a submergible pump that is used when a ship is holed. They're used to pump water out of the compartment until the leak can be sealed, so it's a critical function - arguably one of the MOST critical.
I don't recall the exact numbers for the guys. It was something like 87% were able to move the pumps before training and 93% or 97% were able to move the pumps after training… an improvement of 6-9%. But for the women, prior to training 0% could perform the task. After training? 0%. That's right, an improvement of 0% to a total "mission accomplished" rate of 0% across the female board. Not one woman succeeded.
As I recall, all of this happened sometime in the mid-1990s and it was apparently a bit of a shock to the brass. At the time they were planning a program called "Navy 2000", which would put women in 50% of the shipboard billets. One analyst wrote that in the prior couple decades they'd had two ships holed (the Stark was one, IIRC) that would have gone to the bottom with a 50% female crew. Navy 2000 never happened. Even the politically-correct brass wasn't ready at that point to sacrifice ships and lives for the lie that women could do the job.
But that doesn't stop women from signing up for the Navy welfare system.
The Feminazis always argue that there are plenty of jobs they can do in the Navy on land. I don't know all that much about rotation schedules, but am under the impression that a typical swabbie is out to sea for a year at a time. That's a year away from family, kids, and anything else they might be involved with ashore. The way they get their "quality time" is by rotating into shore billets. But the problem is, they have to have a billet to rotate into. If you've got some split tail who is locked up in a shore billet because she isn't capable of doing what needs to be done aboard ship, that's one less billet the men who ARE doing the job can use to reconnect. This has understandably impacted Navy recruiting, retention and morale - and not in a good way.
On top of that, add the fact that women are promoted faster due the the political correctness aspects despite a weaker background, less experience, fewer capabilities AND they don't take the same risks as the men (but they get the same pay) -- it's a first class case of why women are bad for the military.
But the laughter doesn't stop there!
Did you catch the story of the plan to replace all the heads on all the ships in the Navy? Yep. Seems seeing urinals was just too "icky" for the women, so the top brass (who have long been more political than military) decided to replace them all with "Stainless Sanitary Space Systems". Just looked up the cost for the initial installments. Ladies, you'll be happy to know the Navy spent (at least) $187,000 for each of the 3000 heads they renovated in the first pass so women wouldn't have to look at urinals. That's a little over half a billion dollars. Yes, billion… with a "b". That was just the heads on aircraft carriers. Haven't followed up to find out if the Navy has wasted more millions desexing their other ships.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taADLPtyD...
hmmm. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS0wuN_6w...
I have refrained from commenting on this subject thus far (even as it has spread over several threads) because I believe it is simply contrary to respect for individualism, the matter is bound to enrage some and education and time are the only solutions. First I think... So what? Men and women are different. No kidding... Men commit three times as much violent crime… What can, or should be done? It would be unfair to deny suffrage based on sex irrespective of individuality. What should we do with the men who voted with the women? the women who voted with the men? It would be discrimination not by merit or right. At least reserving the right to vote for those over the age of 18 is uniform for all. I believe I need not impart the reasoning for this...
This lecture is of necessity, full of generalities. I would not wish to be lumped in with all other men, but it has pointed out how government panders to voters, without consideration for the end game. Men in power were often the panderers... women the recipients... both collaborators. If women are acting in general and follow particular patterns, are not men acting similarly? These generalities do not serve us well. Statistics show how groups perform, but provide little explanation, do not, allow for individuality, explain the exceptions, or get at the root of the problem.
There are biological motivations that differ among the sexes, but much of what we are concerned with in these discussions seem to center around the voting trends and dependence of women. It looks as if they have been rational, thinking and voting their own short term self-interest. Much is no doubt regarding their interest in security for themselves and their children. The government has provided and in so doing created a monster welfare state that offers reduced guilt and incentive for men to abdicate their responsibilities and an alternative path for women once left in the lurch. The state has made it easier to live without men and thus they are deprived of not only male support, but also their perspectives.
Men have equal responsibility in this. Much of this is not just biological drivers, though they can’t be denied; it is also sociological conditioning. Women are fully capable of voting long term and comprehending the impact. Apparently too few are getting proper support and viewpoints from more of the men in their lives. This is not to say that men by virtue of their general voting records are all wise or even real men. Real men would bear equal responsibility for birth control, offspring and provide support for the women they impregnate during their reduced capacity (late term, nursing, and child rearing). Many men have not made their cases well enough to their daughters, or acted as proper role models. Men without the biological burden have taken advantage. Many are convinced they need not worry about their responsibilities, or conscience, for the state will provide... Women without reliable spouses, stuck with the burden make choices necessary to get through the day. What concerns have you for long term liberty if your children are hungry today? In the past the traditional family provided. Men as well as women have abdicated much responsibility to the state. The state has enabled. Where were the real men when the first nanny state proposals were enacted contrary to sound constitutional principles? Why are there so few now? Men have been voting since the beginning, women in this nation since 1920. They did not elect Wilson, or have a say regarding the 16th amendment… no that was all on the men… a prerequisite for the big government progressive welfare state. Haven't we as a society all aided in this predilection among many women voters?
Sex should not be a discriminator. If we are to curtail one's voting rights, it should be based on taxation or something other than sex, race or religion. No representation without taxation! A fair tax… Society must again impress upon men and women, the duty of supporting one another and their children, as long as there are children to support. It must again be part of the public psyche that it is best for all, to be self sufficient, and create stable families. We must teach new generations not to overload, rely upon or even create such a system. It is a trap of our own creation. Most have ignored and shrugged off the foreseeable impact of the efforts of the statists for decades.
Voting rights will not be rolled back… a pipedream bound to be seen as chauvinism… :(
We will all learn the lessons, women and men...
For BambiB, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBIC8JTQM... :) I understand where you are coming from. The statistics are what they are. I just don’t see your solution. I think your Mom would give you time out… :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
I didn't find the argument emotionally based, he points out how women have been voting and then comes out with a logical argument to hypothesis the reason why.
If you're admitting that the behavioral characteristics of women has a "kernal" of truth, then he is not blowing it out of proportion. He is following this "kernal" to it's logical conclusion. At NO POINT does he state this is the only reason NOR does he even proclaim the significance of what his theory means. You are the one who jumped to that conclusion.
Load more comments...