Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:43 am UTC

What does xenophobia have to do with avoiding an unnaturally high proportion of your population being old due to a bunch of young people dying in war and causing subsequent economic problems?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:45 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:What does xenophobia have to do with avoiding an unnaturally high proportion of your population being old due to a bunch of young people dying in war and causing subsequent economic problems?
Uh... Immigration?

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:49 am UTC

I guess it just seems kind of unsavory to encourage immigration to replace people who died. There are also a lot of assumptions that have to be made first.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:56 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I guess it just seems kind of unsavory to encourage immigration to replace people who died. There are also a lot of assumptions that have to be made first.
Like what? That there's a large pool of skilled immigrants who'd love the chance to come to America and become citizens?

And really, what's more unsavoury: Restricting the freedoms of women so they can stay home and 'do their part' by breeding more Americans, or loosening restrictions on immigration policies whenever we see a need for young, skilled labourers?

Not to pick on you or anything but this isn't a hard call.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:13 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:And really, what's more unsavoury: Restricting the freedoms of women so they can stay home and 'do their part' by breeding more Americans


Stop. Right there. Stop. I did not say. You know I did not say that. And I would appreciate an apology.

The Great Hippo wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:I guess it just seems kind of unsavory to encourage immigration to replace people who died. There are also a lot of assumptions that have to be made first.
Like what? That there's a large pool of skilled immigrants who'd love the chance to come to America and become citizens?


We're in hypothetical territory for reasons to exclude women from a military draft. Everyone has already agreed the argument does not hold in America today. So, that's the first assumption and it's already not holding water with anyone here. The second assumption is that the country in question is desirable to immigrate to. Again, not true of America today, but very true of the USSR after WWII. The third assumption is that there is a large enough pool of people who wish to emigrate to fill the positions of the dead. Again, true today of developed western countries, not necessarily true of, e.g., Somalia today and it may well not be true of the US in the future. The fourth assumption is that there are immigrants who have the skills needed in the particular economy. This is widely variable; it may or may not be true, depending on a bunch of factors. The country in need of young laborers may also or may not have the education facilities to quickly train workers.

There's just a lot of things that need to be there for immigration to be a viable solution.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:26 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Stop. Right there. Stop. I did not say. You know I did not say that. And I would appreciate an apology.
...uh, what?

I didn't say that you said that. I was reframing your issue in the context of what was being discussed. You said 'x' felt unsavoury, and I said 'well okay, but is it more unsavoury than the alternative?'.

Your frivolous request for an apology has been noted and denied. Take two courses on reading comprehension with a glass of water and call me in the morning.
The Great Hippo wrote:We're in hypothetical territory for reasons to exclude women from a military draft. Everyone has already agreed the argument does not hold in America today. So, that's the first assumption and it's already not holding water with anyone here. The second assumption is that the country in question is desirable to immigrate to. Again, not true of America today, but very true of the USSR after WWII. The third assumption is that there is a large enough pool of people who wish to emigrate to fill the positions of the dead. Again, true today of developed western countries, not necessarily true of, e.g., Somalia today and it may well not be true of the US in the future. The fourth assumption is that there are immigrants who have the skills needed in the particular economy. This is widely variable; it may or may not be true, depending on a bunch of factors. The country in need of young laborers may also or may not have the education facilities to quickly train workers.

There's just a lot of things that need to be there for immigration to be a viable solution.
I was talking about a gender selective draft and its implications in America, not abstractly. I can see how you might think otherwise.

Still, there's a lot in the above quote that I find fairly contentious.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:34 am UTC

Well, no one else is suggesting it could or should apply to the US today and we've indicated that.

Your reframing is a non-sequitur. Excluding women from the draft has nothing to do with women staying at home or being compelled to be baby factories. The population as a whole, women included, tend to want children enough to have enough babies to keep the population close to stable, usually with a little population decline in countries fortunate enough to have cheap, effective birth control and educated women. Nor does having a child force a woman to stay at home; one of the articles posted here even talked about women remaining in the workforce after having children, thanks to cultural acceptance and maternity/paternity leave.

The Great Hippo wrote:Still, there's a lot in the above quote that I find fairly contentious.


Then by all means contend them, good sir.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:49 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Your reframing is a non-sequitur. Excluding women from the draft has nothing to do with women staying at home or being compelled to be baby factories.
I have no idea what you think you're responding to, but you're definitely not responding to anything I actually said. Try reading the words on your screen.


EDIT: I'll give you a hint. When I argue against the draft's theoretical applicability as a means to maintain population stability, that does not mean I believe the draft's actual purpose is to maintain population stability. Similarly, when I argue against using pencil sharpeners to solve advanced trigonometry equations, that does not mean I believe that pencil sharpeners are someone's failed attempt to create a new, incredibly powerful trig calculator.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby sourmìlk » Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:04 am UTC

So, I think what Hippo is suggesting is that, while drafting women in a high-casualty situation in approximately present-day America, it can be compensated for via immigration, and thus the question of population stability isn't relevant. So he's saying that the only reason one could logically oppose a draft on woman, assuming a high-casualty situation in approximately present-day America, is not due to population stability, but due to demographic stability. Hippo is not saying, Iulus, that you think that the only reason oppose a draft on woman is to enforce their role as a homemaker (although I did read it that way at first, so I definitely don't blame you for interpreting it that way), but rather Hippo is saying that, for whatever reasons you might intend to oppose a draft on women, the only goal that opposing a draft would accomplish is demographic stability.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:09 am UTC

I'm sorry, I tend to be...defensive at what might be a suggestion that I believe in restricting the rights of women to end of a return to 19th century social and political mores for...reasons you might remember.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:11 am UTC

What I'm saying is that a draft that excludes women for the purpose of maintaining population stability is a compelling argument only if you're a nativist; not if you're anyone else.

Honestly, demographics don't even work in that example. One of the primary conceits of nativism in America is that there's such a thing as an 'American race'; an ethnicity that defines 'America'. There isn't. How would you measure success rates of any such policy? You'd have to adopt whatever bizarre, ridiculous metrics any given nativist assigns to the 'true Americans'.

Edit: Okay. And I'm sorry for the snark; as someone who takes pains to be as clear as possible with words, I respond very poorly to being misread.

Edit-Edit: Also, there might be perfectly reasonable reasons to exclude women from the draft that don't involve population stability. I don't know any, and I'd love to hear some if they exist (I suspect they do not). I'm saying the population stability reasons are bunk, but I'm not saying they're the only reasons, or that other rational reasons can't exist (again, I suspect they do not).

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby sourmìlk » Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:21 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Edit: Okay. And I'm sorry for the snark; as someone who takes pains to be as clear as possible with words, I respond very poorly to being misread.


Wait: you can use language to convey meaning? God damn, I thought it was for annoying people.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby folkhero » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:37 am UTC

A couple points: If the U.S. gets into a war large enough to start conscripting people, and it's killing people in large enough numbers to have a substantial demographic impact, the country might stop being such a great destination for people to immigrate to.

Secondly, I think that the draft is in violation of the 13th amendment (despite what the supreme court says) and is an affront to human freedom regardless of the law. I oppose adding women to the draft because I oppose any expansion of a system that I view to be evil.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
big boss
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:59 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby big boss » Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:04 am UTC

folkhero wrote:Secondly, I think that the draft is in violation of the 13th amendment (despite what the supreme court says) and is an affront to human freedom regardless of the law. I oppose adding women to the draft because I oppose any expansion of a system that I view to be evil.


How is the draft evil? So long as its used properly I think its perfectly fine. Sadly, its a necessary tool of statecraft. It would be hard to maintain self-rule if you can't easily raise an army to defend your country.

I can see how it boarders on slavery-esque ideas, but if your living somewhere that provides you with protection of your property and your family as well as all other sorts of welfare that you wouldn't be able to provide yourself (and most the time all you need to do is pay your taxes) without entering into a "social contract" you should in return be able to provide a defense for that institution that is providing you all that.
"Starbuck, what do you hear?"
"Nothing but the Rain."

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby folkhero » Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:13 am UTC

big boss wrote:How is the draft evil? So long as its used properly I think its perfectly fine.

By your definition of "used properly" you think it's fine, but what if my definition of "used properly" is different from yours? What if the definition of those in power differs from both of our definition? I'm not worried about polity in the best case scenario, and I'm wary of those who are. If you think it's evil for a human to be forced to serve involuntarily at the whims of a plantation owner, why isn't it illegal for that same human be forced to serve involuntarily at the whims of several politicians in Washington D.C.? Remember in the second case, the human is much more likely to be killed and be forced to commit serious moral crimes.

Sadly, its a necessary tool of statecraft. It would be hard to maintain self-rule if you can't easily raise an army to defend your country.

I can see how it boarders on slavery-esque ideas, but if your living somewhere that provides you with protection of your property and your family as well as all other sorts of welfare that you wouldn't be able to provide yourself (and most the time all you need to do is pay your taxes) without entering into a "social contract" you should in return be able to provide a defense for that institution that is providing you all that.
Sadly, slaves are a necessary tool of plantation ownership, it would be hard to stay in business if you can't cheaply get large amounts of labor to maintain your crops. If you're living somewhere that provides you with food, shelter and protection for you and your family, then you should, in return, be able to provide labor for that institution that is providing you all that.

To put it more bluntly: Why is the state an institution that is allowed to employ involuntary, when we consider it evil if any other institution does the same?
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5943
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Angua » Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:23 am UTC

POI - you can and did get people 'opting in' to do the jobs of the former slaves in the form of indentured labour, which is why a lot of Caribbean countries that became more heavily populated towards the end of abolition and after emancipation have larger Asian demographics. These people would do work in return for food and clothing for a certain time frame, and then be paid a sum at the end and be allowed to set up their own lives in a new country in return.

So, slaves aren't necessary for plantation ownership. Especially not after the industrial revolution, which helped drive the nail in the coffin for plantations unable to adapt to using the new equipment.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby sourmìlk » Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:24 am UTC

Because that institution is the government, which we purposely give extra powers as to ensure our protection. You might as well ask why it's okay for the government to jail people when it's not okay for other institutions to. The government gets special privileges as an institution, and so saying "why can the government do X when other organizations can't do X" isn't really a valid argument.

Anyways, depending on the country, drafts are pretty much necessary. I really don't think Israel would be in good shape if it didn't draft you when you turned 18. But in a country as large as the US with military spending as hefty as the US, I don't think a draft is necessary. I only support a draft when necessary to preserve public safety.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby nitePhyyre » Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:29 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:
big boss wrote:How is the draft evil? So long as its used properly I think its perfectly fine.

By your definition of "used properly" you think it's fine, but what if my definition of "used properly" is different from yours? What if the definition of those in power differs from both of our definition? I'm not worried about polity in the best case scenario, and I'm wary of those who are. If you think it's evil for a human to be forced to serve involuntarily at the whims of a plantation owner, why isn't it illegal for that same human be forced to serve involuntarily at the whims of several politicians in Washington D.C.? Remember in the second case, the human is much more likely to be killed and be forced to commit serious moral crimes.

Sadly, its a necessary tool of statecraft. It would be hard to maintain self-rule if you can't easily raise an army to defend your country.

I can see how it boarders on slavery-esque ideas, but if your living somewhere that provides you with protection of your property and your family as well as all other sorts of welfare that you wouldn't be able to provide yourself (and most the time all you need to do is pay your taxes) without entering into a "social contract" you should in return be able to provide a defense for that institution that is providing you all that.
Sadly, slaves are a necessary tool of plantation ownership, it would be hard to stay in business if you can't cheaply get large amounts of labor to maintain your crops. If you're living somewhere that provides you with food, shelter and protection for you and your family, then you should, in return, be able to provide labor for that institution that is providing you all that.

To put it more bluntly: Why is the state an institution that is allowed to employ involuntary, when we consider it evil if any other institution does the same?

Social Contract
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

aoeu
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby aoeu » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:06 pm UTC

They can't force you to do anything, they'll just punish you if you don't. The state is hardly the only one doing this.

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Goplat » Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:16 pm UTC

aoeu wrote:They can't force you to do anything, they'll just punish you if you don't.
Can you give an example of what you would call forcing someone to do something, that isn't just "I'll punish you if you don't"?

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Spambot5546 » Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:56 pm UTC

They could, conceivably, just drag someone kicking and screaming to the battlefield.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

aoeu
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby aoeu » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:13 pm UTC

Goplat wrote:
aoeu wrote:They can't force you to do anything, they'll just punish you if you don't.
Can you give an example of what you would call forcing someone to do something, that isn't just "I'll punish you if you don't"?

That's the joke (though I guess there are some examples in medicine). Most people have to work. If they don't the creditors will force them. Nothing inherently evil about it. Whether it's right or not is not something that can be resolved by asking the people being forced if they want to do it.
Last edited by aoeu on Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Vash » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:19 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:What I'm saying is that a draft that excludes women for the purpose of maintaining population stability is a compelling argument only if you're a nativist; not if you're anyone else.


I disagree for certain nations other than the United States. You can just plain have serious population decline, like in Russia.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby folkhero » Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:35 pm UTC

Angua wrote:POI - you can and did get people 'opting in' to do the jobs of the former slaves in the form of indentured labour, which is why a lot of Caribbean countries that became more heavily populated towards the end of abolition and after emancipation have larger Asian demographics. These people would do work in return for food and clothing for a certain time frame, and then be paid a sum at the end and be allowed to set up their own lives in a new country in return.

So, slaves aren't necessary for plantation ownership.

Many countries have done a similar thing with soldiers, so conscription isn't necessary for statehood.
aoeu wrote: Most people have to work. If they don't the debtors will force them. Nothing inherently evil about it.
I think you mean creditors, and It is evil if the debtors were forced into debt against their will, are unable to declare bankruptcy, and must pay their debt by killing and putting their lives in grave danger.

A country can try to convince its own people to volunteer, that their service is necessary for the survival of the state and that the survival of the state is worth fighting for. I think a country should have to have their military power tied to the support its military actions have among the potential soldiers, I think this leads to fewer wars of aggression and fewer wars that are primarily to enhance the glory of the countries leaders at the expense of the population.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

aoeu
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby aoeu » Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:
aoeu wrote: Most people have to work. If they don't the debtors will force them. Nothing inherently evil about it.

I think you mean creditors


edited

folkhero wrote:A country can try to convince its own people to volunteer, that their service is necessary for the survival of the state and that the survival of the state is worth fighting for. I think a country should have to have their military power tied to the support its military actions have among the potential soldiers, I think this leads to fewer wars of aggression and fewer wars that are primarily to enhance the glory of the countries leaders at the expense of the population.


Problem is that is not as effective as the alternative. Weakness does not deter attackers, it encourages them. And I doubt it leads to fewer wars of aggression if you already are a democracy.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby lutzj » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:20 am UTC

It's generally accepted that the state can extract labor and property from people (e.g., taxes and jury duty) in order to protect itself and its people. Conscription (especially to repel an immediate outside threat) isn't very different. It only gets tricky when you have to decide whether, say, containing communism in Vietnam is necessary for the preservation of the nation.

With regards to excluding women from the draft, the physical differences between men and women alone are fairly strong justification. If, say, 20% of women and 80% of men meet the fitness requirements for the infantry, it makes no sense to draft women. That's before you even get into less-concrete differences such as aggressiveness, the various fringe benefits, such as ensuring at least half of your population can stay in their home areas and be productive, and the flimsy-but-emotionally-compelling arguments that women should not be subjected to the horrors of war.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby yurell » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:22 am UTC

Then why not base conscription on physical requirements rather than gender?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:27 am UTC

yurell wrote:Then why not base conscription on physical requirements rather than gender?


And be sane and rational about the whole thing? Pffft!
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby lutzj » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:31 am UTC

yurell wrote:Then why not base conscription on physical requirements rather than gender?


Because you have to draft someone and send them to a training camp at great expense to determine their physical capabilities. It's much more efficient to not draft women at all and allow the small proportion that both meet the requirements and want to fight to enlist, just as the small proportion of men that are unfit to fight could get themselves exempted from the draft.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby yurell » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:41 am UTC

You just proposed that the force could be increased by 25% by including women ... that's hardly a 'small proportion'.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby lutzj » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:49 am UTC

yurell wrote:You just proposed that the force could be increased by 25% by including women ... that's hardly a 'small proportion'.


Sorry if I wasn't clear; it's a small proportion of women. From a practical standpoint, drafting women would be wastefully inefficient compared to just letting those with the physical capabilities and a desire to fight enlist on their own.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:54 am UTC

Considering that women's smaller size makes them ideal for tank and submarine duty (which they are currently not allowed in), I'd say there is a use for most healthy women. Might not be able to load the torpedo/tank shell, but they could drive or be on sonar.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby sourmìlk » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:03 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Considering that women's smaller size makes them ideal for tank and submarine duty (which they are currently not allowed in), I'd say there is a use for most healthy women. Might not be able to load the torpedo/tank shell, but they could drive or be on sonar.


Also, I think being shorter is an advantage in the airforce, as it makes it easier to handle high-g situations.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:51 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Considering that women's smaller size makes them ideal for tank and submarine duty (which they are currently not allowed in), I'd say there is a use for most healthy women. Might not be able to load the torpedo/tank shell, but they could drive or be on sonar.
Since when is "won't be able to complete all the tasks that might be required of them to save the ship" ideal? And don't people on ships get their duty assignments rotated often enough? I was under the impression that some days you could be mopping the deck, some days loading the shells, and if you pissed someone off, scrubbing the toilets.

You guys want to know one thing the military hasn't figured out how to do yet? Stop men from dropping everything if a women gets injured in combat. You put a bunch of men in combat, get their adrenaline going, engage their fight or flight response, get them thinking with the reptilian part of their brains, and if the one women in the squad gets hit, you just lost the whole squad.

Another thing that is problematic, is the Muslim men will not surrender to a woman. If you have the chance to send in a group of men and have the insurgents surrender, or have a woman on the squad and wind up in a firefight, what is the better option?

And yes, being able to pull more g's means that if you are going to stick women somewhere, the AF makes the most sense.

I think WW2 handled it pretty well. The women stayed home and made the weapons, the men went and used them. Balance. Ying-and-Yang. Etc.

As to the OP, men aren't stupid, if women are going to start being the bread winners, let them. I'm a stay at home guy, my wife works. It's a pretty sweet setup. I dont get why women would have wanted to change that in the first place.

On the other hand, men have been fucking up the world for a long time, let's face it, the fairer sex can probably do a better job running the world.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Hawknc » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:05 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:You guys want to know one thing the military hasn't figured out how to do yet? Stop men from dropping everything if a women gets injured in combat. You put a bunch of men in combat, get their adrenaline going, engage their fight or flight response, get them thinking with the reptilian part of their brains, and if the one women in the squad gets hit, you just lost the whole squad.

Another thing that is problematic, is the Muslim men will not surrender to a woman. If you have the chance to send in a group of men and have the insurgents surrender, or have a woman on the squad and wind up in a firefight, what is the better option?

You know, several countries have women serving in the frontline. We have actual data for this now. How's about some evidence to support that first claim? And for the second, if we're going to use the example of fighting in a largely Islamic region, women are actually extremely helpful in frontline squads when it comes to searching civilian women or children. The situation tends to be much less tense - and culturally offensive - than if a male soldier was doing so.
nitePhyyre wrote:It's a pretty sweet setup. I dont get why women would have wanted to change that in the first place.

That much is obvious.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Zamfir » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:12 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Also, I think being shorter is an advantage in the airforce, as it makes it easier to handle high-g situations.

Hmm, I am pretty sure that stronger muscles are important to manage blood pressure etc. When it comes to g-forces this effect is (on average) a larger advantage for men then their height is a disadvantage. At least within the range of heights that fit in a typical fighter aircraft.

The size of aircraft matters a lot here (same goes for submarines for example). Fighters are designed to fit most men, with an optimum slightly below the average male size. Small women (like below 5'4") literally don't fit, and those are the women who would have a serious g-force advantage.

An air force of small, mostly female pilots with slightly lighter and more compact aircraft might well be objectively better than a force of stronger, mostly male pilots with aircraft that fit them. But if aircraft (and submarines) are designed to fit men, most of the size advantage of women disappears while the strength advantage of men stays.

Given the steady inflow of female pilots, there might some point in the future where it becomes beneficial to design fighters around a pilot who is far below average male size. But that's still a long way off, and I doubt manned combat aircraft will still be around then. Female drone operators seem the more likely prospect.
nitePhyrre wrote:Since when is "won't be able to complete all the tasks that might be required of them to save the ship" ideal? And don't people on ships get their duty assignments rotated often enough? I was under the impression that some days you could be mopping the deck, some days loading the shells, and if you pissed someone off, scrubbing the toilets.

You were under the impression that loading shells by hand happens a lot in modern navies? And if women cannot scrub toilets and mope floors, then history took a looong time to find out.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby sourmìlk » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:31 am UTC

Yeah, I've heard that the F-35 is the last manned fighter, which wouldn't surprise me. In WWII there was a guy with no legs (he used prosthetics) who piloted fighters, and he kicked ass because he could pull high-g maneuvers: his blood had nowhere to go.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby Ulc » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:38 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:You guys want to know one thing the military hasn't figured out how to do yet? Stop men from dropping everything if a women gets injured in combat. You put a bunch of men in combat, get their adrenaline going, engage their fight or flight response, get them thinking with the reptilian part of their brains, and if the one women in the squad gets hit, you just lost the whole squad.


Funny how Isreal has managed to figure that out. You know, what with having what is considered one of the most competent and efficient armies in the world, that just so happens to include women serving in front line combat roles. So, could you cite some actual data on that? Instead of just misogynistic assumptions about men and women?

It's a pretty sweet setup. I dont get why women would have wanted to change that in the first place.


Because it wasn't a choice for them, it was enforced on them.
Because it sucks ten kinds of balls to be effectively unable to decide your own fate (divorce? Good luck what with being barred from making your own money!)
Because it's less of a sweet choice when it includes working full time at home and get yelled at in the evening because dinner wasn't on the table at 18:00.
Because being expected to "do your duty in the bed" no matter if you want it or not, with the asshole that just yelled at you is really not very nice.
[insert about a million more reasons that women as a collectively group had gotten a very raw deal up until recently in history*]


*Which is not to say that the current situation is perfect, merely that it has improved somewhat.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:29 am UTC

Jebus, nitePhyyre, do you just go out of your way to throw out unsupported statements? Is there, like, an unsupported statement generator you use or something?
lutzj wrote:Because you have to draft someone and send them to a training camp at great expense to determine their physical capabilities. It's much more efficient to not draft women at all and allow the small proportion that both meet the requirements and want to fight to enlist, just as the small proportion of men that are unfit to fight could get themselves exempted from the draft.
You realize this is how it works already in America, right? That once you're drafted, you have to go through a battery of tests to determine your physical and mental fitness? Why couldn't we weed out unfit soldiers of either gender then?

aoeu
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Re: Why men are in trouble (CNN Op-Ed)

Postby aoeu » Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:28 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Jebus, nitePhyyre, do you just go out of your way to throw out unsupported statements? Is there, like, an unsupported statement generator you use or something?
lutzj wrote:Because you have to draft someone and send them to a training camp at great expense to determine their physical capabilities. It's much more efficient to not draft women at all and allow the small proportion that both meet the requirements and want to fight to enlist, just as the small proportion of men that are unfit to fight could get themselves exempted from the draft.
You realize this is how it works already in America, right? That once you're drafted, you have to go through a battery of tests to determine your physical and mental fitness? Why couldn't we weed out unfit soldiers of either gender then?

Because of the cost?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mutex and 19 guests