Conquer Club

SEE WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT HE PERMABANNED ME FOR NO REASON, THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON BETWEEN HIM NICHOLASFLAK,METSFANMAXX ON BULLYING AND INTIMIDATING PHATSCOTTY AND NIETSCHE.

don't yell, I'm deaf not blind

The filthy, clogged toilet that is LC has backed up and spilled onto the floor, soiling our nice bath mats. We need some cleanup in here!

on topic: if you're dumb enough to volunteer to get shot at, male or female, then by all means...

-TG

Where the f*ck did they come from?

muy_thaiguy wrote:Where the f*ck did they come from?

They were made from man's rib.

2dimes wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Where the f*ck did they come from?

They were made from man's rib.

No, they cometh by clay--I tell you.

Let us forego the standards of science and have ourselves are merry NOU! dispute.

thegreekdog wrote:Do you think there will be a lot of people against this?

It seems maybe my hope was wrong. Maybe, now that Phat's gone, my wacko calibrator is off. It's been so nice though.

Nobunaga wrote:Allow me to be the first to be against it... well, partially and conditionally against it.

The day women are made to meet the same requirements, many of them physical, is the day I'm all for it. So when you've been shot in the gut and need to be carried a mile by your buddy, you'd know the woman in your foxhole can pull the job off.

At present, they need not meet those requirements.

Actually, women are often better able to stand up to long term stress, including things like long forced marches and such, than men.

The benefit of male strength is often very overrated. I cannot even count the number of arrogant strong young guys I worked to the ground -- I am not particularly big or particulary muscular, but I used what I had more effectively than they. Also, I have more flexibility, so was prone to some injuries less than men.

The issue is not that men are women or women men, the issue is mostly that both can do the jobs effectively, and even when the approach has to differ for women, many times rethinking how things are done to make it easier for men is very beneficial to all involved.

Or, to put it another way.. foxholes don't provide much protection against either IEDs on the roadway, (or directed drones, for that matter)

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:Allow me to be the first to be against it... well, partially and conditionally against it.

The day women are made to meet the same requirements, many of them physical, is the day I'm all for it. So when you've been shot in the gut and need to be carried a mile by your buddy, you'd know the woman in your foxhole can pull the job off.

At present, they need not meet those requirements.

Actually, women are often better able to stand up to long term stress, including things like long forced marches and such, than men.

The benefit of male strength is often very overrated. I cannot even count the number of arrogant strong young guys I worked to the ground -- I am not particularly big or particulary muscular, but I used what I had more effectively than they. Also, I have more flexibility, so was prone to some injuries less than men.

The issue is not that men are women or women men, the issue is mostly that both can do the jobs effectively, and even when the approach has to differ for women, many times rethinking how things are done to make it easier for men is very beneficial to all involved.

Or, to put it another way.. foxholes don't provide much protection against either IEDs on the roadway, (or directed drones, for that matter)

No, I'm all for babes with guns killing enemies of the United States. Your bit above though is theory, not fact. Ground troops should face the same requirements, regardless.

The fun thing is that this doesn't really change much except acknowledge that women are actually serving in combat areas and face the same hazards their male counterparts do. And morale doesn't suffer.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... omen-fight

Read this a while ago, made a really good argument for why this is a no-brainer.

Government-Managed Businesses: Decades Behind the Times

spurgistan wrote:The fun thing is that this doesn't really change much except acknowledge that women are actually serving in combat areas and face the same hazards their male counterparts do. And morale doesn't suffer.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... omen-fight

Read this a while ago, made a really good argument for why this is a no-brainer.

Yeah... the main point of the article is basically, and I quote, "It is time for the U.S. military to get over its hang-ups and acknowledge women’s rightful place on the battlefield. ".

Not exactly a neutral examination of the situation, but I understand the argument and I absolutely believe women should be allowed to fight... so long as they are held to the same standards as their be-testicled compatriots..

BigBallinStalin wrote:Government-Managed Businesses: Decades Behind the Times

I missed the part where private enterprises had a stellar record of hiring women to do jobs that were traditionally male-oriented roles.

spurgistan wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Government-Managed Businesses: Decades Behind the Times

I missed the part where private enterprises had a stellar record of hiring women to do jobs that were traditionally male-oriented roles.

Oh, the standard for corporations is bumped up to "stellar," yet hear them rejoice when the military finally stops blatantly violating anti-discrimination laws--decades behind corporations. Just sayin'.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Government-Managed Businesses: Decades Behind the Times

I missed the part where private enterprises had a stellar record of hiring women to do jobs that were traditionally male-oriented roles.

Oh, the standard for corporations is bumped up to "stellar," yet hear them rejoice when the military finally stops blatantly violating anti-discrimination laws--decades behind corporations. Just sayin'.

Fine, I'll rephrase. Corporations today are still doing a stellar job of separating traditionally male-oriented (and, on average, better-paying) jobs from female oriented jobs. Hopefully, this will be a repeat of the military fully racially integrating combat units, which was a big step towards a less racially segregated America.

BBS failed to notice that spurg was actually sarcastically condemning corporations

probably because it was obvious to BBS that the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.

john9blue wrote:

_sabotage_ wrote:It must be part of the shock and awe.

The muslim whatever we call them to avoid war crime laws will be so surprised that a woman is shooting them it will be like a flash bang. On the other hand, when they catch and rape the crap out of them and send us videos, we might have a change of heart about equality in the forces.

yeah, but who cares? we have progressive equality on our side!

and everyone knows that the most effective way to win a war is by being moral and fair.

I agree. This is progressiveness gone mad!

We need to keep the women out of the front-lines cause they, like children and small animals, are incapable of assuming the same risks we men assume.
God bless their pretty little heads for thinking they could ever die in a trench like a man can.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I agree. This is progressiveness gone mad!

We need to keep the women out of the front-lines cause they, like children and small animals, are incapable of assuming the same risks we men assume.
God bless their pretty little heads for thinking they could ever die in a trench like a man can.

by "same risks" do you mean "lower standards"?

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I agree. This is progressiveness gone mad!

We need to keep the women out of the front-lines cause they, like children and small animals, are incapable of assuming the same risks we men assume.
God bless their pretty little heads for thinking they could ever die in a trench like a man can.

by "same risks" do you mean "lower standards"?

Not possible, that would make it higher risks.

john9blue wrote:by "same risks" do you mean "lower standards"?

stop moving the goal posts.

I'm 100% in favour of the same standard being demanded regardless of sex, but this point has nothing to do with the garbage you and sabotage were bathing in in those quotes.

Oh, and another thing:

probably because it was obvious to BBS that the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.

Really now? This coming from the fuckin' proverbial agnostic.

I assume this wikipedia page is the result of some massive hidden conspiracy then, right?

I mean it says things like:

Stanford University professor Shelley Correll and colleagues (2007) sent out more than 1,200 fictitious résumés to employers in a large Northeastern city, and found that female applicants with children were significantly less likely to get hired and if hired would be paid a lower salary than male applicants with children. This despite the fact that the qualification, workplace performances and other relevant characteristics of the fictitious job applicants were held constant and only their parental status varied. Mothers were penalized on a host of measures, including perceived competence and recommended starting salary. Men were not penalized for, and sometimes benefited from, being a parent. In a subsequent audit study, Correll et al. found that actual employers discriminate against mothers when making evaluations that affect hiring, promotion, and salary decisions, but not against fathers.[98][99][100][101][102][103] The researchers review results from other studies and argue that the motherhood role exists in tension with the cultural understandings of the "ideal worker" role and this leads evaluators to expect mothers to be less competent and less committed to their job.[104][105] Fathers do not experience these types of workplace disadvantages as understandings of what it means to be a good father are not seen as incompatible with understandings of what it means to be a good worker.[106]

spurgistan wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Government-Managed Businesses: Decades Behind the Times

I missed the part where private enterprises had a stellar record of hiring women to do jobs that were traditionally male-oriented roles.

Oh, the standard for corporations is bumped up to "stellar," yet hear them rejoice when the military finally stops blatantly violating anti-discrimination laws--decades behind corporations. Just sayin'.

Fine, I'll rephrase. Corporations today are still doing a stellar job of separating traditionally male-oriented (and, on average, better-paying) jobs from female oriented jobs. Hopefully, this will be a repeat of the military fully racially integrating combat units, which was a big step towards a less racially segregated America.

(1) Either there is a massive conspiracy among all businesses which have agreed to not hire a less than potential amount of women into executive positions, or

(2) businesses are in a competitive market, governed by supply and demand. For the demand of female labor, let's say that business A offers less to women than it does to men (it discriminates), then this arbitrage opportunity would become available to competitors--who would gladly hire away the productive women with the offer of higher wages. Then there's supply. Perhaps, there's not enough qualified women for executive positions (how many men get MBAs compared to women? How much does the chance/desire to have kids reduce one's long-term productivity?


Within the market, there may be some discrimination when it comes to hiring women into executive positions, but discrimination hardly explains the full discrepancy in income. And still, when the market is compared to the government, the government is still decades behind (Not surprisingly, some of its own bureaucracies ignore anti-discrimination laws for years---like the military).

I'm just pointing out that equality before the law is treated like a joke by the government for a much longer time, and that markets face pressure to forego discriminatory behavior in exchange for reaping higher profits and more productive workers. The government totally lacks this profit-loss incentive. It can afford to be discriminatory and unfair for decades and perhaps forever in other areas.

Intriguingly, people talk shit about corporations and the market, yet praise the government--decades after it's been violating its own anti-discrimination laws. It's time for that faith in the state to marginally dissolve.

john9blue wrote:BBS failed to notice that spurg was actually sarcastically condemning corporations

probably because it was obvious to BBS that the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.

Seems serious enough to me:


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184745&view=unread#p4039787

Haggis_McMutton wrote:[

probably because it was obvious to BBS that the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.

Really now? This coming from the fuckin' proverbial agnostic.

I assume this wikipedia page is the result of some massive hidden conspiracy then, right?

I mean it says things like:

Stanford University professor Shelley Correll and colleagues (2007) sent out more than 1,200 fictitious résumés to employers in a large Northeastern city, and found that female applicants with children were significantly less likely to get hired and if hired would be paid a lower salary than male applicants with children. This despite the fact that the qualification, workplace performances and other relevant characteristics of the fictitious job applicants were held constant and only their parental status varied. Mothers were penalized on a host of measures, including perceived competence and recommended starting salary. Men were not penalized for, and sometimes benefited from, being a parent. In a subsequent audit study, Correll et al. found that actual employers discriminate against mothers when making evaluations that affect hiring, promotion, and salary decisions, but not against fathers.[98][99][100][101][102][103] The researchers review results from other studies and argue that the motherhood role exists in tension with the cultural understandings of the "ideal worker" role and this leads evaluators to expect mothers to be less competent and less committed to their job.[104][105] Fathers do not experience these types of workplace disadvantages as understandings of what it means to be a good father are not seen as incompatible with understandings of what it means to be a good worker.[106]

Suppose I send out 1200 fictitious resumes to employers in mining companies. The fictitious applicants are 60 years old. If they get hired, do you think the older entrants will receive a higher, equal, or lower wage than the younger ones?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Suppose I send out 1200 fictitious resumes to employers in mining companies. The fictitious applicants are 60 years old. If they get hired, do you think the older entrants will receive a higher, equal, or lower wage than the younger ones?

I have no clue and I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are we talking physical labour in the mines? are the older fictitious applicants claiming to have more experience in that same area?

Anyway, I should say I don't have a particularly strong opinion about this. I don't take it as intrinsically wrong that someone might think that moms, on average will be less cutthroat than dads.
I do take offense with the notion that this issue "has been disproven many times", when it clearly still is an active area of research.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:by "same risks" do you mean "lower standards"?

stop moving the goal posts.

I'm 100% in favour of the same standard being demanded regardless of sex, but this point has nothing to do with the garbage you and sabotage were bathing in in those quotes.

that's because, even if you manage to find women who are able to meet the physical standards that men do, they introduce a whole host of psychological problems to their unit. if the benefit from the additional "man"power in our military outweighed these negative psychological consequences, then i'd be totally in favor of introducing women to combat. the reality of the situation, though, is that our military is already bloated and there's just no need to make our current soldiers suffer more than they have to... even if it's the female soldiers who are victims of misogyny from the males.

the disagreement ITT arises because i look at things from a pragmatic POV and others look at it from an idealist POV. yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Oh, and another thing:

probably because it was obvious to BBS that the idea that women earn much less due to actual discrimination has been disproven many times.

Really now? This coming from the fuckin' proverbial agnostic.

I assume this wikipedia page is the result of some massive hidden conspiracy then, right?

I mean it says things like:

Stanford University professor Shelley Correll and colleagues (2007) sent out more than 1,200 fictitious résumés to employers in a large Northeastern city, and found that female applicants with children were significantly less likely to get hired and if hired would be paid a lower salary than male applicants with children. This despite the fact that the qualification, workplace performances and other relevant characteristics of the fictitious job applicants were held constant and only their parental status varied. Mothers were penalized on a host of measures, including perceived competence and recommended starting salary. Men were not penalized for, and sometimes benefited from, being a parent. In a subsequent audit study, Correll et al. found that actual employers discriminate against mothers when making evaluations that affect hiring, promotion, and salary decisions, but not against fathers.[98][99][100][101][102][103] The researchers review results from other studies and argue that the motherhood role exists in tension with the cultural understandings of the "ideal worker" role and this leads evaluators to expect mothers to be less competent and less committed to their job.[104][105] Fathers do not experience these types of workplace disadvantages as understandings of what it means to be a good father are not seen as incompatible with understandings of what it means to be a good worker.[106]

first, answer me this: do you think it's irrational for an employer to not want to hire a mother? do you think a company full of mothers will perform just as well as one full of fathers?