Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link. It's long, but the pertinent bits that I'm going to comment on are here:

Now, hopefully, this isn't considered too hateful or misleading of a thread title, but this is precisely why women don't belong in the armed forces. What seems like ages ago, I considered myself a feminist, believing the inherent equality between men and women. "Of course women should be able to serve in the armed forces," I told myself. "They're just as capable as men."

As this incident indicates, no, women aren't as capable as men. Pound-for-pound, women are weaker than men. They have a higher percentage of body fat. They are slower and shorter, and they less stamina.

While I'm sure a feminist is going to tell me that it doesn't matter because women have to meet the same standards as men: no, they don't. The requirements, as of 2008, are vastly different, and I doubt they've changed much in the past three years.

The death of Annie Dryden is the end result of women who buy into the G.I. Jane line: you're strong, empowered, and you can kick any man's ass. Unless, of course, that man knocks you flat on your ass and you die the next day.

The article also goes on to mention the high incident rates of sexual assault/rape in the military. Though that is not the fault of women, it reinforces my belief that the military is not a place for women. When it comes down to it, I have to ask myself: should women die for their country? No, they shouldn't. A man protects his home and his wife; he must sacrifice for her, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Now, hopefully, this isn't considered too hateful or misleading of a thread title, but this is precisely why women don't belong in the armed forces. What seems like ages ago, I considered myself a feminist, believing the inherent equality between men and women. "Of course women should be able to serve in the armed forces," I told myself. "They're just as capable as men."

As this incident indicates, no, women aren't as capable as men. Pound-for-pound, women are weaker than men. They have a higher percentage of body fat. They are slower and shorter, and they less stamina.

While I'm sure a feminist is going to tell me that it doesn't matter because women have to meet the same standards as men: no, they don't. The requirements, as of 2008, are vastly different, and I doubt they've changed much in the past three years.

The death of Annie Dryden is the end result of women who buy into the G.I. Jane line: you're strong, empowered, and you can kick any man's ass. Unless, of course, that man knocks you flat on your ass and you die the next day.

The article also goes on to mention the high incident rates of sexual assault/rape in the military. Though that is not the fault of women, it reinforces my belief that the military is not a place for women. When it comes down to it, I have to ask myself: should women die for their country? No, they shouldn't. A man protects his home and his wife; he must sacrifice for her, not the other way around.
As the armed forces become more mechanized/computerized, there are less and less tasks that rely on brute size and strength (eg, piloting a drone first comes to mind). Women can also be useful when it comes to thinking outside the male box, ie, getting another perspective. However, unless she has special combat training the man doesn't...yeah, I know where I'm placing my bet for the winner in a physical confrontation.

For years, I've had a similar beef everytime I see a woman in the movies or TV knock a man down with one sock to the jaw, (groin shots seem rare these days, as if the woman "doesn't have to do that" anymore). Even for your average joe, it's not that easy. Everytime I see a woman doing it, I say to my wife, if your average jane thinks that's realistic, she's in for a rude awakening.

This was quickly typed, so there may be some fine points that could've been better explained. Essentially: women do have their place in the arenas of combat, just not every single place where the man is.

I argee!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
While I'm sure a feminist is going to tell me that it doesn't matter because women have to meet the same standards as men: no, they don't. The requirements, as of 2008, are vastly different, and I doubt they've changed much in the past three years.

This is literally the only problem with women in the armed forces and it has nothing to do with women. If you let in underqualified men they'll be underqualified, too.

In any event using this death as an example of how women are "weak" is wonderful proof that you know nothing at all about physiology or fighting. About what I would expected from you really.

Originally posted by Mindship
For years, I've had a similar beef everytime I see a woman in the movies or TV knock a man down with one sock to the jaw, (groin shots seem rare these days, as if the woman "doesn't have to do that" anymore). Even for your average joe, it's not that easy. Everytime I see a woman doing it, I say to my wife, if your average jane thinks that's realistic, she's in for a rude awakening.

If you really think most men are going to be fine after getting punched in the face by an adult who doesn't have muscular dystrophy or a serious video game addiction you're in for a rude awakening in the first time you get punched in the face.

Also, wow, your wife must have quite the tolerance for condescending bullshit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really think most men are going to be fine after getting punched in the face by an adult who doesn't have muscular dystrophy or a serious video game addiction you're in for a rude awakening in the first time you get punched in the face. Not punched in the face (it doesn't take much to damage a nose); I said punched (socked) in the jaw, ie, knuckle against bone. Unless your hand is used to hitting something hard, your hand is gonna hurt, at best. And given that the average woman's hand is smaller/finer-boned than the average man's, it's not realistic to portray a woman walking up to a man, punching him square in the jaw and then walk away all la-de-da. As I also said, even for a man to do this to another man is not an injury-free feat (again, untrained participants).

Also, wow, your wife must have quite the tolerance for condescending bullshit. Actually, when she hears it, she lets me know quite readily.

Originally posted by Mindship
Not punched in the face (it doesn't take much to damage a nose); I said punched (socked) in the jaw, ie, knuckle against bone. Unless your hand is used to hitting something hard, your hand is gonna hurt, at best. And given that the average woman's hand is smaller/finer-boned than the average man's, it's not realistic to portray a woman walking up to a man, punching him square in the jaw and then walk away all la-de-da. As I also said, even for a man to do this to another man is not an injury-free feat (again, untrained participants).

When you watch a movie where a man punches a someone in the face do you go seek out male friends/relative and explain how they'll get hurt if they punch someone in the jaw or do you assume only your wife is so stupid she can't tell fiction from reality?

These are action movies. People punch through concrete walls during fights and get nothing but bloody knuckles. None of the stars, men or women, are ever being protrayed in a remotely realistic way.

Talking about how the "average" person would fare is insane. Only talking about how the average woman would fare is insane and condescending.


Or lets put it in a different context. Batman's car in the Nolan movies is basically a tank. The average real car is nothing like a tank, it cannot survive having a truck fall on it. Is it "unrealistic" for Batman's car to act like a tank? No, because in the movie its armored and has some kind of super engine inside.

Similarly a woman in a movie may be a MMA fighter. The average real world woman is not a MMA fighter. Is it "unrealistic" for the female MMA fighter in the movie to act like she's incredibly strong and trained in fighting? No. Are you an ******* to tell you wife different every time you see a movie? Absolutely.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is literally the only problem with women in the armed forces and it has nothing to do with women. If you let in underqualified men they'll be underqualified, too.
It is entirely the fault of women, you dimwitted beta male. Because women have bought into that feminist egalitarian line for years, they have the expectation that they can do whatever a man does AND AIN'T NO MAN GONNA TELL ME DIFFERENT. So what happens when it turns out that they can't? They kvetch about discrimination and how this isn't fair because women shouldn't need the exact same standards as men. Then, when the bar is lowered, they can get in...and then they (or their male counterparts) end up dead or wounded because they aren't physically up to the task in demanding situations.

Women have about two-thirds the strength of men. Deal with it.

What's hilarious is that this is exactly what happened in the article. Dryden tried to play with the big boys and knocked some Navy guy on his ass. He got up, dusted himself off, and returned the favor. Twenty-four hours later, she was dead.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When you watch a movie where a man punches a someone in the face do you go seek out male friends/relative and explain how they'll get hurt if they punch someone in the jaw or do you assume only your wife is so stupid she can't tell fiction from reality?

These are action movies. People punch through concrete walls during fights and get nothing but bloody knuckles. None of the stars, men or women, are ever being protrayed in a remotely realistic way.

Talking about how the "average" person would fare is insane. Only talking about how the average woman would fare is insane and condescending.


Or lets put it in a different context. Batman's car in the Nolan movies is basically a tank. The average real car is nothing like a tank, it cannot survive having a truck fall on it. Is it "unrealistic" for Batman's car to act like a tank? No, because in the movie its armored and has some kind of super engine inside.

Similarly a woman in a movie may be a MMA fighter. The average real world woman is not a MMA fighter. Is it "unrealistic" for the female MMA fighter in the movie to act like she's incredibly strong and trained in fighting? No. Are you an ******* to tell you wife different every time you see a movie? Absolutely. Well, someone's having a peachy day.

My point was, very simply, that (all else being equal) if a woman thinks she can take on a man as well as another man can, she's kidding herself.

Originally posted by Mindship
My point was, very simply, that (all else being equal) if a woman thinks she can take on a man as well as another man can, she's kidding herself.

And my point is: that's a stupid thing to believe.

If you have a man and a woman and the only thing that differs is sex (ie "all else being equal) then by definition they're both exactly as strong and skilled. Only morons think the man has an advantage.

If two people get into a fight knowing who's a woman and who's a man is only useful information if you know absolutely nothing else. A woman who is stronger and more skilled than the man she's up against will win exactly like a man who is stronger and more skill than his opponent.

Obviously men are likely to be stronger but if they're not being a man doesn't give them any magic powers.

I'll put this in simple explicit terms to help you: Generalities tell you nothing about individuals. The average roll on two dice is seven but when you go around insisting that every roll comes up as seven people are right to treat you like a moron.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Women have about two-thirds the strength of men. Deal with it.

Then you should have no difficulty outlifting a female Olympian given that she's only two-thirds your strength . . .

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What's hilarious is that this is exactly what happened in the article. Dryden tried to play with the big boys and knocked some Navy guy on his ass. He got up, dusted himself off, and returned the favor. Twenty-four hours later, she was dead.

He got knocked on his ass.
She got her head smashed against concrete.

Also how many closed head injuries have you taken that you think being knocked on your as is "exactly the same" as being punched in the face?

Are you retarded that you would compare an edge case to the general female population? Yes, you are, because you're a liberal, and you're incapable of generalizing even a little bit unless you're talking about Republicans/white Christians. YOU SEE, NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON IS BLACK AND A SCIENTIST; THEREFORE, ANYONE NOTING RACIAL DISPARITIES IN IQ IS ILLOGICAL.

From getting knocked on her ass.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you have a man and a woman and the only thing that differs is sex (ie "all else being equal) then by definition they're both exactly as strong and skilled. By "all else being equal," I had meant that the woman doesn't have martial skills (since that was brought up). Obviously, that would make a difference.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A woman who is stronger and more skilled than the man she's up against will win exactly like a man who is stronger and more skill than his opponent. Of course.

Obviously men are likely to be stronger... Exactly. See? Great minds do think alike.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Are you retarded that you would compare an edge case to the general female population?

When were we talking about the general population of women? Talking about the "general female population" gives you no useful information about particular women. And since just about everything that happens involves particular people not massive groups it's pretty irrelevant.

No one is suggesting we put all of Americas women in the armed forces only that if a woman is qualified she should be able to (though I agree the lowered standards for women in various professions is harmful and a result of short idiotic advocacy by women's rights groups). The fact that most women don't qualify is a moronic argument to make when most men don't qualify either.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes, you are, because you're a liberal, and you're incapable of generalizing even a little bit unless you're talking about Republicans/white Christians.

I'm not really a liberal (very pro-gun, for instance) I'm just viciously opposed to the shit-stain that is American Libertarianism (I advocate rounding them up into camps and torturing them to death, infants who might have been infected will simply have their heads crushed). You seem to be its greatest success.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really think most men are going to be fine after getting punched in the face by an adult who doesn't have muscular dystrophy or a serious video game addiction you're in for a rude awakening in the first time you get punched in the face.

Also, wow, your wife must have quite the tolerance for condescending bullshit.

Well, I can present a nice anecdote for you: a "bar trick" (never took place in a bar or involved alcohol) I used to do was let people punch me in the face for a fee. I have never been knocked out and it was hilarious to see people try. And Mindship is also right about the damage done to the hands throwing the punches: one dude busted his knuckles open on my temple.

But the girls could not punch worth a sh*t. I don't recommend you try it but you would be hard pressed to find a female capable of knocking you out with one punch to the face.

What Mindship says is correct: even for the average male, it can be difficult to knock out another person (depends on the glassiness of their jaw). It is not realistic to show Angelina Jolie*, with her almost anorexic form, taking on full grown, ex-Russian special forces, males in groups and knocking them out with simple punches. She just doesn't have the muscle to pull that off. This is what Mindship was referring to. And, no, the average person believes lots of stupid sh*t including that skinny women can punch hard enough to knock out a highly trained soldier. However, telling his wife just once is probably enough.


*Salt




More on topic.....


This is why I like my local fire department: they require the same performance from both males and females. If you can't climb up the ladder with a full hose load on your shoulders in the required time, you fail. The test is blind to your gender. And he two gals that passed that test (and work for the Fire Department) put most American males to shame in both strength and endurance.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you should have no difficulty outlifting a female Olympian given that she's only two-thirds your strength . .

You're correct...but for most of them, not all.


What now? estahuh

Ah, the sorry state of the male progressive: ever justifying his policies, ever contorting reality to fit his egalitarian ideas.

Libertarianism is a cancer, an ideology devoted to feckless capitalism and raw consumerism, an ideology devoid of loyalty to anything but material wealth. It is no wonder that the maiden of this shameful path was a Jewess. It just so happens that I find libertarians marginally more tolerable than neoconservatives and neo-Marxists.

MSNPeJAgBzo

The ability to survive a TBI without medical treatment has nothing to do with gender.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Libertarianism is a cancer, an ideology devoted to feckless capitalism and raw consumerism, an ideology devoid of loyalty to anything but material wealth. It is no wonder that the maiden of this shameful path was a Jewess. It just so happens that I find libertarians marginally more tolerable than neoconservatives and neo-Marxists.

I see absolutely no difference between your ideology and Libertarianism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What Mindship says is correct: even for the average male, it can be difficult to knock out another person (depends on the glassiness of their jaw).

Which is why I asked if he sought out male friends to inform them of this fact. Otherwise it just seems like he things his wife is stupid, which would be rather condescending.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is not realistic to show Angelina Jolie*, with her almost anorexic form, taking on full grown, ex-Russian special forces, males in groups and knocking them out with simple punches.

Was anything in Salt realistic? The reviews I heard suggested that Jolie and Depp weren't portraying humans.*

I completely fail to understand this sudden obsession with how women perform in action movies.

It is not realistic to show Jason Statham get hit in the skull by a lead pipe wielded by a eight foot tall man and just walk it off, but I don't see that creating an uproar anywhere. Action movies make only the barest of allusions toward reality in the first place. To focus on how well women are following the laws of physics is, as I have said repeatedly, really really stupid.

*Badum-tish

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is why I like my local fire department: they require the same performance from both males and females. If you can't climb up the ladder with a full hose load on your shoulders in the required time, you fail. The test is blind to your gender. And he two gals that passed that test (and work for the Fire Department) put most American males to shame in both strength and endurance.

Yeah, that's the perfect system for firefighters/cops/soldiers. Its a shame we don't have similarly objective tests we can use for most professions.

That is because you are a fool.

I think the point is that women, by default, are weaker than men. Women would have to go out of there way preparation wise to beat an average man, where as a man with no special training will beat a woman with no special training just by being a man. This isn't sexist, it's just how it is.

So if you are betting on a fight, and all you know about the fighters are that one is a man and one is a woman, the simple fact is that it's safer to bet on the man.

I don't think this simple fact should keep them out of the armed forces. But like the fireman example presented by dadudemon, I think they should have to be at least as physically adept as the men.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is why I asked if he sought out male friends to inform them of this fact. Otherwise it just seems like he things his wife is stupid, which would be rather condescending.

I don't know if there's an objective answer as to whether or not males are more resistant to knock-out punches. However, it should be obvious that the average female would throw a "weaker" punch than the average male.

On top of that, you'd find that the average US male is sedentary, out of shape, and weak...and most likely unable to knock out renegade Russian Special Forces.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Was anything in Salt realistic?

I see your point but to answer literally: yes, lots of stuff.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The reviews I heard suggested that Jolie and Depp weren't portraying humans.*

I get it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I completely fail to understand this sudden obsession with how women perform in action movies.

It is not realistic to show Jason Statham get hit in the skull by a lead pipe wielded by a eight foot tall man and just walk it off, but I don't see that creating an uproar anywhere. Action movies make only the barest of allusions toward reality in the first place. To focus on how well women are following the laws of physics is, as I have said repeatedly, really really stupid.

*Badum-tish

I don't consider those two points to be mutually exclusive to Mindship's point. I think they both apply to Mindship's point, equally. It's unrealistic to think a dude could survive a very strong swing with a big lead pipe right to the cranium: people die from less.

There does not appear to be any difference in how unrealistic the face-breaking punches from a 105 lbs Jolie and a Statham tanking pipe swings to the skull are (that's a confusing sentence...but you know what I mean).

But it's even more unrealistic to believe Jolie could knock all of those guys out (with her fists) than Statham did in the second transporter film (where he put on the bike peddles for shoes in that garage and started Chuck Norris Style roundhouse kicking the stumbling baffoons...awesome action sequence). Probably because Statham weighs 50-70 lbs more, is taller, has a larger frame, and is much stronger...

And now we are back on Mindship's original point. It's fer fantasy, really, so it doesn't matter.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, that's the perfect system for firefighters/cops/soldiers. Its a shame we don't have similarly objective tests we can use for most professions.

I believe we talked about this in another thread...deja vu...

But, yeah, all physically demanding jobs should be blind to sex/gender, imo. If you can do it, do it and get paid. That is a rather libertarian position but I agree with it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Otherwise it just seems like he thinks his wife is stupid, which would be rather condescending.If I thought that, I would've been terminated with extreme prejudice long ago. At the very least, I would've kissed my peace-of-household sayonara.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, yeah, all physically demanding jobs should be blind to sex/gender, imo. If you can do it, do it and get paid. Copy that.
That is a rather libertarian position but I agree with it. Libertarian, schmibertarian. Whoever agrees with that still retains plain ol' common sense.

wait, what are we to deduce from your article?

a man would have went to the ER?

men are impervious to brain trauma?

anecdotal evidence is win?

That women tend to be far far weaker than men and that, due to the skewering of standards for female soldiers, there are a lot of women in the military who are no where near their male counterparts in physical efficiency, which results in them being a liability on the battlefield.

What we've all unanimously come to the conclusion of, is that if women are to be allowed to serve on front-line positions within the military, they need to be able to perform at the same level of standards as the men, same goes with weak or effeminate gurly men. If they can't, that's too bad. The military isn't about equality, and rightfully so. It's about efficiency.

That's the gist of the thread. Beyond that, Sym's got his pc panties in a bunch about something that I can't comprehend. It is entertaining, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I can present a nice anecdote for you: a "bar trick" (never took place in a bar or involved alcohol) I used to do was let people punch me in the face for a fee. I have never been knocked out and it was hilarious to see people try. And Mindship is also right about the damage done to the hands throwing the punches: one dude busted his knuckles open on my temple.

How much would I have to pay for that pleasure?

Originally posted by Mindship
Not punched in the face (it doesn't take much to damage a nose); I said punched (socked) in the jaw, ie, knuckle against bone. Unless your hand is used to hitting something hard, your hand is gonna hurt, at best. And given that the average woman's hand is smaller/finer-boned than the average man's, it's not realistic to portray a woman walking up to a man, punching him square in the jaw and then walk away all la-de-da. As I also said, even for a man to do this to another man is not an injury-free feat (again, untrained participants).

Incorrect.

http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/michelle%20rodriguez%20jail1.jpg

Originally posted by Bardock42
How much would I have to pay for that pleasure?

I will pay for 1/2 the fee to see you lay him flat on his back.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
pc

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2783-Correctitude

Also point out when people are stupid hardly strike me as "politically correct" even by the most Libertarian twisting the definition.

Thus enforcing my theory that the only people who ever post that video are PC panty-waists themselves.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Link won't load. Way to go, PC panty-waist.

Works for me. Maybe you need a new computer.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Thus enforcing my theory that the only people who ever post that video are PC panty-waists themselves.

Aww, it made dadude cry when I posted it last time.

Still sums up my thoughts.

I'm going to win this edit battle bro. I'm a level 25 editor bro.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2783-Correctitude

Also point out when people are stupid hardly strike me as "politically correct" even by the most Libertarian twisting the definition.
The Escapist is a bunch of beta nerd f*ggots, so I don't care what they have to say.

laughcry

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The Escapist is a bunch of beta nerd f*ggots, so I don't care what they have to say.

Hey it made Zeal cry too!

Two out of three isn't bad.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I live on the moon.

So?

reported have fun in ban-land bro i reported you to ush lol

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
reported have fun in ban-land bro i reported you to ush lol

i saw u edit but it was first 30 secs so therz no thingy!!!!1

Ok folks, either focus on something useful to discuss or I'll close. The way I see it, seeing people are agreed that standards should be the same between genders, two points of discussion have been raised

1. Is it inevitable that allowing females into an organisation leads to them getting lower entry standards?

2. Is the issue of sexual violence against women in the armed forces a reason to keep them out of the military?

If you find anything else useful to discuss coming from the original article, be my guest, but it's time for all the various attacks to stop.

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect. Fixed.

http://www.gonemovie.biz/WWW/WanadooFilms/ScienceFiction/AliensVasquez.jpg

Fists not even needed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I "whined" about your inappropriate application to my post, not the vid itself.

As I recall you said "**** political correctness" but then claimed you meant something other than "**** political correctness", which would be entirely your fault since I can't read your mind only the things you write.

And you totally whined about the video. "It called me mean!"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As I recall you said "**** political correctness" but then claimed you meant something other than "**** political correctness", which would be entirely your fault since I can't read your mind only the things you write.
And you totally whined about the video calling you mean.

We already went over why you misunderstood, actually. I don't think Ush wants us to rehash. You can ask him if it's okay to post about it but I don't think he'll give his consent. If you want to talk about it via PMs, I'll oblige.

Finally read the story bit. How does a woman being beating to death by a man have anything to do with the military and women in the military?

A similar situation could have happened in say a hospital between a female and male nurse; how would that reflex in women not being fit to serve as nurses? Another fail thread desperately trying to make a link where there is none. Good job.

Originally posted by Robtard
Finally read the story bit. How does a woman being beating to death by a man have anything to do with the military and women in the military?

A similar situation could have happened in say a hospital between a female and male nurse; how would that reflex in women not being fit to serve as nurses? Another fail thread desperately trying to make a link where there is none. Good job.
Woman buys into that G.I. Jane bullshit, attempts to hulk out on someone while in the military, and then dies as a result. Gee, I don't know how this might pertain to the issue of women in the military.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Woman buys into that G.I. Jane bullshit, attempts to hulk out on someone while in the military, and then dies as a result. Gee, I don't know how this might pertain to the issue of women in the military.
It could have happened to a man.

Your beer goggles are impressive when reading news articles.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Woman buys into that G.I. Jane bullshit, attempts to hulk out on someone while in the military, and then dies as a result. Gee, I don't know how this might pertain to the issue of women in the military.

A woman died after being slammed into the ground by a man, again, this could have happened someplace other than a military base; involving two people who weren't soldiers.

This is also ignoring the obvious that a male soldier could have just as easily died by being hit the same exact way.

Think for a second instead of scrapping for a connection that doesn't exist.

I don't even see how you could look at that and say she wasn't qualified to be a soldier, unless the expectation is that soldiers should be superhumanly resistant to head trauma.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't even see how you could look at that and say she wasn't qualified to be a soldier, unless the expectation is that soldiers should be superhumanly resistant to head trauma.

I'll be the first to call bullshit on women having easier test for jobs like the military, police, firefighters etc., jobs like that should have equal testing/requirements for all.

But yeah, this connection he's trying to make here is clown-shoery. I suspect he just hates women.

Originally posted by Robtard
I suspect he just hate women.

Zeal just likes people to think that he's edgy. Someone probably told him it was considered Politically Correct to not be filled with pointless hatred. He'll leave puberty eventually.

Not wanting women to die in combat equates to hating women. Strong deduction, Sherlock.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Not wanting women to die in combat equates to hating women. Strong deduction, Sherlock.
Lol (1) this wasn't combat and (2) what you've been saying has absolutely no resemblance to that sentiment.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Not wanting women to die in combat equates to hating women. Strong deduction, Sherlock.

If she had died in a combat situation, you'd have a point; she didn't, genius. Cry more?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol (1) this wasn't combat and (2) what you've been saying has absolutely no resemblance to that sentiment.

I don't like to be a nit-picky bassturd about something you've said, OV...


But...

1. It is combat:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/combat

"to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously..."

To be exact, it was Hand to Hand combat that the unfortunate lady physically instigated and participated in.


2. What he is saying directly applies to the topic. Under the same circumstances, a man would have probably (because this is all about averages and probabilities) fared better than the lady. "He" may not have been knocked out/down by the other man or "he" may have knocked out the other person on "his" first strike.

The male pronoun references are in quotes because it is a thought expiriment about pretending the woman was a man.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't like to be a nit-picky bassturd about something you've said, OV...


But...

1. It is combat:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/combat

"to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously..."

To be exact, it was Hand to Hand combat that the unfortunate lady physically instigated and participated in.


2. What he is saying directly applies to the topic. Under the same circumstances, a man would have probably (because this is all about averages and probabilities) fared better than the lady. "He" may not have been knocked out/down by the other man or "he" may have knocked out the other person on "his" first strike.

The male pronoun references are in quotes because it is a thought expiriment about pretending the woman was a man.
You miss the point: there's nothing here that proves that a woman is unfit to be a soldier, just that head trauma is bad if you're human.

Seriously, you're smarter than this.

And lol at you explaining your quotations as if I'm some kind of moron.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You miss the point: there's nothing here that proves that a woman is unfit to be a soldier, just that head trauma is bad if you're human.

Seriously, you're smarter than this.

And lol at you explaining your quotations as if I'm some kind of moron.

And in Zeal's opinion, you miss the point, as well. Like I said in the thought experiment, the end result could have resulted very differently: not death. If the standards in the military were not asymmetric, then we MAY have had a more physically fit young lady strutting her stuff like a moron. The death may have been avoided if that were the case. I don't know for sure, but I definitely can't say (objectively) that if she were a male, "he" would have died as well. The probability that "he" would have survived the scuffle is definitely not marginally improved: it is quite significant.

Also, I do appreciate the vote in confidence from you. Perhaps I am not seeing your side of things clearly: I do bring a bias to the table because I have a disdain for the asymmetric rules in the military.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The probability that "he" would have survived the scuffle is definitely not marginally improved: it is quite significant.

Can you point me to statistics that suggest larger people are vastly more likely to survive untreated head injury?

That should really be the bigger issue here, apparently no one involved thought it was a good idea to have the checked after getting a concussion. If we're going to be using misleadingly gendered terminology in this thread I'd that's any extremely male problem that the military has.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Can you point me to statistics that suggest larger people are vastly more likely to survive untreated head injury?
It's statistically more likely that a larger individual would not have sustained the injury in the first place, since people who are bigger, stronger, heavier, have more leverage and reach are statistically more likely to win fights.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It's statistically more likely that a larger individual would not have sustained the injury in the first place, since people who are bigger, stronger, heavier, have more leverage and reach are statistically more likely to win fights.

Not if they're stupid enough to fight a person 100 pounds heavier than them which this woman apparently was.

I'm lolling hard at the beta male feminists whining about how BUT BUT BUT MEN ARE JUST AS LIKELY TO DIE FROM AN INJURY IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
beta male

There must be a term for words only used by the people they apply to.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not if they're stupid enough to fight a person 100 pounds heavier than them which this woman apparently was. If they fought someone 100 pounds heavier than them, they wouldn't be "larger". They'd be the smaller person.

edit- I don't see Zeal as being much a beta male. He seems more like the kind of obnoxious ******* that women with low self-esteem flock to.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The ability to survive a TBI without medical treatment has nothing to do with gender.

that actually isn't true

women's brains are more lateralized and thus slightly more able to compensate for damage from injuries

Originally posted by inimalist
that actually isn't true

women's brains are more lateralized and thus slightly more able to compensate for damage from injuries
zing

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808209

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838931

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901653

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Can you point me to statistics that suggest larger people are vastly more likely to survive untreated head injury?

Try to understand the point instead of knee-jerking, please.

Can you not see that she hurt her head because she was "picked up and body slammed" by the jerk?

The maximum impact velocity of a body being "body-slammed" varies directly with the mass of the person being body slammed and with the strength of the body-slammer.

Is that simple enough for you or did you not understand this portion of my post:

"He" may not have been knocked out/down by the other man or "he" may have knocked out the other person on "his" first strike.

You're oversimplifying the point to make your own point. If she were a male (assume average for a marine) she would have been larger and much stronger. She may not have gotten body-slammed at all due to her increased size. Additionally, she may have been able to knock out the other guy in her first assault if she were bigger, too.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That should really be the bigger issue here, apparently no one involved thought it was a good idea to have the checked after getting a concussion. If we're going to be using misleadingly gendered terminology in this thread I'd that's any extremely male problem that the military has.

That's a good point and should be a secondary focus of the thread.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
If they fought someone 100 pounds heavier than them, they wouldn't be "larger". They'd be the smaller person.

I thought we were talking about being larger relative to this woman. Because of her size there were clearly going to be more people bigger than her but she was also the kind of person who gets into a serious fight with a person much bigger than her. If she were bigger she'd still be that impulsive or stupid. So there's still be somewhat less risk of being hurt in a fight since fewer opponents would be that dangerous but the more fundamental problem of picking ones battles remains.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
edit- I don't see Zeal as being much a beta male. He seems more like the kind of obnoxious ******* that women with low self-esteem flock to.

He whines too much for that. Everything he does is telling the world about his lack of self confidence, particularly the whole "proud racist" persona.

Originally posted by inimalist
that actually isn't true

women's brains are more lateralized and thus slightly more able to compensate for damage from injuries

As far as the topic is concerned, that particular point is wrong for the overall outcome: "women have worse outcomes than men after a concussion, and a recent meta-analysis involving 8 studies and 20 outcome variables showed outcome was worse in women than men for 85% of the variables studied."



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014529

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There must be a term for words only used by the people they apply to.

You're looking for "hypocrisy" I believe...but I do not think beta male applies to anyone in this thread and it's not even a legit label.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If she were a male (assume average for a marine) she would have been larger and much stronger. She may not have gotten body-slammed at all due to her increased size. Additionally, she may have been able to knock out the other guy in her first assault if she were bigger, too.

or, her increased mass could have caused a more severe blow to the head due to momentum, or the other soldier may have used a more lethal/harmful attack given the now larger size of the attacker...

I don't see a lot of value to this "could have, if this" type of argumentation... If the situation were different it would have been different. I certainly see no evidence that points to gender playing a major role in this specific case, regardless of what other theoretical cases we can make up, and in no way see anything that suggests this woman was motivated by the "I-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do" type mentality...

afaik, the type of unarmed combat soldiers learn is designed to kill and maim, why then would we have to bring gender into the equation as a variable when someone is killed or maimed as a result of a soldier's unarmed combat.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As far as the topic is concerned, that particular point is wrong for the overall outcome: "women have worse outcomes than men after a concussion, and a recent meta-analysis involving 8 studies and 20 outcome variables showed outcome was worse in women than men for 85% of the variables studied."



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014529

actually, look at the dates. There has been a lot of argumentation over the years about the issue, and you will see that stuff over the last few years certainly is more consistent with women having better outcomes. I also just finished a grad level clinical neuro course where we discussed this stuff.

Its not an indisputable fact, but the general trend seems to be better recovery for women and better survival (though in both cases, not by huge margins at all)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Try to understand the point instead of knee-jerking, please.

It's who I am. If I'm too real for you go home

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're oversimplifying the point to make your own point. If she were a male (assume average for a marine) she would have been larger and much stronger.

Do we actually know if she was below the minimum reqs for male marines?

My point is that it's size that matters not sex. We're not talking about an imaginary average woman or average man, we're talking about an actual particular person. If you make her into a man he's a man of the same size and will still lose because he's smaller.

Women tend to be smaller, sure. But so what? As we've agreed on this only means "hire women who aren't small" not "don't hire women".

From the opposite direction. Men tend to be more aggressive. If a man gets in a fight declaring that it happened "because he's male" and that "it might not have happened if he was female" is ridiculous for exactly the same reasons. Stripping away all context doesn't make for any useful kind of discussion about the real world.

Originally posted by inimalist
or, her increased mass could have caused a more severe blow to the head due to momentum, or the other soldier may have used a more lethal/harmful attack given the now larger size of the attacker...

You mean, "the soldier would not have been able to accelerate her as quickly due to her increased mass because a 1 meter drop requires additional acceleration above and beyond g to accomplish the 25-30 mph velocity." 1 meter drop * 9.8 m/s/s = 9.8 m/s final velocity = 22 mph. Not quite there.

The momentum would not cause a more severe blow unless she was slammed head first. The article indicated that her head "whiplashed" after hitting the ground clearly indicating the she was slammed on her back. Since it is far from an elastic collision, her body would have absorbed quite a bit of energy (it's squishy and flexible compared to concrete. ) The larger the squishy-ish body, the more force it can readily absorb from impact. For an example, consider the difference between a fat guy/girl taking a canonball to the stomach and a skinny 110lbs guy/girl (hint...there's a reason that trick is not done by a skinny girl/guy).



I do when it direclty applies to the topic at hand. You should not ignore alternative positive outcomes in an argument about social policies of the military.

"I don't see a lot of value in considering that the US Could have won WWII without the atomic bombs."



Right: no one would have chimed in about the obvious asymmetric "weeding-out" rules of the military. They would have just said, "Stupid aggressive boys being stupidly aggressive again."






I certainly see evidence that points to gender (physical gender) playing a significant role in this specific case.




I, in now way, see anything that suggests that this woman was not motivated in the slightest by the "I-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do" type mentality. Mostly because I do not know her. Superficially, it would seem she was at least partially motivated by that type of mentality. Do you think that she never thought "the military is dominated by men" or sometihng to that regard?



That's been my point: gender should not matter. We should get rid of the asymmetric requirements.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's who I am. If I'm too real for you go home

lol

I'm at work. If I go home, then I can type bad words.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do we actually know if she was below the minimum reqs for male marines?

She was a small gal, for sure. I found some images on google and the male marines around her make her look small.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My point is that it's size that matters not sex.

That's also my point. I do not really care about the gender argument (that women should not serve).


Also...all tests for the marines do not have anything to do with your relative size to others: same with PT.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We're not talking about an imaginary average woman or average man, we're talking about an actual particular person. If you make her into a man he's a man of the same size and will still lose because he's smaller.

We're talking about an imaginary average male or female that are required to pass the same physical requirements, regardless of their size, to serve in the armed forces. Agreed?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Women tend to be smaller, sure. But so what? As we've agreed on this only means "hire women who aren't small" not "don't hire women".



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
From the opposite direction. Men tend to be more aggressive. If a man gets in a fight declaring that it happened "because he's male" and that "it might not have happened if he was female" is ridiculous for exactly the same reasons. Stripping away all context doesn't make for any useful kind of discussion about the real world.

I disagree. Because he's male, it may have ended up being a typical scuffle where they just wrestle. If it was a dude, same size as Annie, he would have been stronger so he may have been able to defend the counter-attack a bit better. No matter how you approach the topic, a dude would have fared better in that same scenario even if you "control" for size.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean, "the soldier would not have been able to accelerate her as quickly due to her increased mass because a 1 meter drop requires additional acceleration above and beyond g to accomplish the 25-30 mph velocity." 1 meter drop * 9.8 m/s/s = 9.8 m/s final velocity = 22 mph. Not quite there.

The momentum would not cause a more severe blow unless she was slammed head first. The article indicated that her head "whiplashed" after hitting the ground clearly indicating the she was slammed on her back. Since it is far from an elastic collision, her body would have absorbed quite a bit of energy (it's squishy and flexible compared to concrete. ) The larger the squishy-ish body, the more force it can readily absorb from impact. For an example, consider the difference between a fat guy/girl taking a canonball to the stomach and a skinny 110lbs guy/girl (hint...there's a reason that trick is not done by a skinny girl/guy).

but by your own logic here, there is no reason to assume a man would have landed or been hit in the same way as the woman was, so there is no valid way to do this comparison... That was my point...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do when it direclty applies to the topic at hand. You should not ignore alternative positive outcomes in an argument about social policies of the military.

"I don't see a lot of value in considering that the US Could have won WWII without the atomic bombs."

well, sure, but in your example, the atomic bomb was cited by the emperor of Japan as the reason for surrender. The only link you have to gender playing a role here is some vague idea that men shouldn't die when getting their head smashed against the ground or that a man would be less likely to have their head smashed against the ground.

even if I give you that, gender is still not nearly important or relevant to the situation as atomic bombs were in the victory over Japan.

additionally, the question "could America have won WW2 without the atomic bomb" is actually irrelevant to the question of "why did America win WW2", except in the most indirect comparison of theoretical things.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I certainly see evidence that points to gender (physical gender) playing a significant role in this specific case.

would you fill me in?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I, in now way, see anything that suggests that this woman was not motivated in the slightest by the "I-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do" type mentality. Mostly because I do not know her. Superficially, it would seem she was at least partially motivated by that type of mentality.

by that line of reasoning I see no reason why alien space leeches were not controlling her via undetectable radio transmissions

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you think that she never thought "the military is dominated by men" or sometihng to that regard?

even if she had, which there is no evidence of, of what relevance would that be?

Feeling that an institution that only recently accepted women into it might be male dominated certainly doesn't translate into "I'm going to attack this man for girl power, roar"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
From the opposite direction. Men tend to be more aggressive. If a man gets in a fight declaring that it happened "because he's male" and that "it might not have happened if he was female" is ridiculous for exactly the same reasons.

I was thinking about this as well

given it was a male who provoked the fight in the first place, isnt this more of a reason to ban males from the military?

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, look at the dates. There has been a lot of argumentation over the years about the issue, and you will see that stuff over the last few years certainly is more consistent with women having better outcomes. I also just finished a grad level clinical neuro course where we discussed this stuff.

Its not an indisputable fact, but the general trend seems to be better recovery for women and better survival (though in both cases, not by huge margins at all)

"Although clinical opinion is often that women tend to experience better outcomes than men after TBI, the opposite pattern was suggested in the results of this metaanalysis."

It would seem that they are more likely to recover better than men but they are more likely to die than men...from what I know of concussions and gender.

IIRC, the gender differences on the frequency of TBI is actually specific to how stupid/aggressive/careless males are. As children and as older adults, the TBI frequency evens out (and somewhere it says that women sustain more head injuries than men, as they get older...evening out the numbers or something. Source?)

The problem is not the frequency of TBI, but the complications experienced due to TBIs. From what I know, females are more likely to die from a TBI.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Although clinical opinion is often that women tend to experience better outcomes than men after TBI, the opposite pattern was suggested in the results of this metaanalysis."

It would seem that they are more likely to recover better than men but they are more likely to die than men...from what I know of concussions and gender.

IIRC, the gender differences on the frequency of TBI is actually specific to how stupid/aggressive/careless males are. As children and as older adults, the TBI frequency evens out (and somewhere it says that women sustain more head injuries than men, as they get older...evening out the numbers or something. Source?)

The problem is not the frequency of TBI, but the complications experienced due to TBIs. From what I know, females are more likely to die from a TBI.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808209

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838931

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901653

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17891564

EDIT:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17891564

one from 2009 that says postmenapausal women are more likely:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19185108

Originally posted by inimalist
look at the dates.

your study is from 2000 and it is a meta analysis, meaning it was only looking at data from before 2000.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I, in now way, see anything that suggests that this woman was not motivated in the slightest by the "I-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do" type mentality. Mostly because I do not know her.

All of the information we do have suggests otherwise.

She became a packaging specialist, for one, not a grind-up-Arabs-with-a-chainsaw specialist (they offer that). That's a logistics job with no special physical requirements and about as far as a soldier can get from the GI Jane mold.

There are two versions of events suggested in the article both of which suggest she was not thinking "I can do anything a man can do".

Story 1: she randomly started a fight with another marine
Story 2: a guy was badmouthing the marines and she punched him for it (and knocked him off his feet apparently)

Both of these just suggest she was impulsive and/or not very bright.


I notice in reviewing the article a rather serious problem with the writing. Early on they narrate a set of events as if they were fact. Then they explain that it's the one thing we know for sure didn't happen.

Originally posted by inimalist
but by your own logic here, there is no reason to assume a man would have landed or been hit in the same way as the woman was, so there is no valid way to do this comparison... That was my point...

Incorrect: it assumes the same events unfolded. But it would have been more difficult to acclerate that body through the air towards the ground.

If you assume the same actions were taken but with the average male and not female, then the events favor a more positive outcome. If you conclude anything differently, you are wrong. Move along instead of misdirecting your feminist rage at me.


Originally posted by inimalist
well, sure, but in your example, the atomic bomb was cited by the emperor of Japan as the reason for surrender.

That actual argument and outcome is completely irrelevant to my point. I was only showing you why such reasoning was silly at best and horrible at worst.


Originally posted by inimalist
The only link you have to gender playing a role here is some vague idea that men shouldn't die when getting their head smashed against the ground or that a man would be less likely to have their head smashed against the ground.

I wasn't vague about it at all. facepalm


Originally posted by inimalist
even if I give you that, gender is still not nearly important or relevant to the situation as atomic bombs were in the victory over Japan.

You're missing the point, still. The answer is not the point, it is the question itself and it is not the actual content of the question that is the point, either: it's the fact that it is utterly and completely stupid to not entertain hypotheticals in a situation to see if a more positive outcome could be achieved: that's problem solving and is integral to humanity.

Originally posted by inimalist
additionally, the question "could America have won WW2 without the atomic bomb" is actually irrelevant to the question of "why did America win WW2", except in the most indirect comparison of theoretical things.

Again with the dodge.



Originally posted by inimalist
would you fill me in?


I already did if you read my posts.


Would you fill me in on how her gender played no role at all in her death?


Originally posted by inimalist
by that line of reasoning I see no reason why alien space leeches were not controlling her via undetectable radio transmissions

No, you mean to say this of yourself, "By my reasoning, I see no reason why we should not conclude that alien space leeches were controlling her via undetectable radio transmissions."

But let's stick to the topic instead of using strawman arguments.

Really, your point boils down to: "She was a female in a highly male oriented profession. The person she was in no way related to her perception of gender and it played no role in both her actions and the jerk's reactions towards her."


That's a fairly ignorant position to hold, don't you think? If you want to discount that gender played no role, be my guest. But it is likely that she said stuff like "just because I'm a girl doesn't mean I can't shoot you dead" in the face of the mysongeny that is quite rampant in the US Armed forces.



Originally posted by inimalist
even if she had, which there is no evidence of, of what relevance would that be?

You see no relevance to her realizing this? If so, why?

Originally posted by inimalist
Feeling that an institution that only recently accepted women into it might be male dominated certainly doesn't translate into "I'm going to attack this man for girl power, roar"

Talk to a military therapist before you knee-jerk. One of the largest obsticles women face is overcoming that gender barrier when that barrier is established as even part of their admittance. Yes, that means being being overly aggressive to their male counter-parts. It becomes a way of life in the military to get an ounce of respect from their male counterparts. But if you want to think that that played no role in her aggressiveness towards the sh*t-talker, be my guest.

I'll assume that it probably played a role. As a feminist, you of all people should realize the unfair necessity for women to have to act tougher in the military. It's lame...and I don't like it.

Originally posted by inimalist
given it was a male who provoked the fight in the first place, isnt this more of a reason to ban males from the military?

No.



Males should be banned from military service (by your logic) because they are unreasonable at times, more difficult to give orders too (it's what my classmate said who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan in a leadership position), play around too much, end-up doing off-the-wall sh*t like r*pe and murder of civvies, and so forth.

I think a case could be made for only allowing females to serve, personally.

Originally posted by dadudemon
misdirecting your feminist rage at me.

...

That's a fairly ignorant position to hold, don't you think?

...


As a feminist, you of all people

nope, you're right

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All of the information we do have suggests otherwise.

All of the information we have suggests you're at least wrong and at most partially right (still making me right either way).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She became a packaging specialist, for one, not a grind-up-Arabs-with-a-chainsaw specialist (they offer that). That's a logistics job with no special physical requirements and about as far as a soldier can get from the GI Jane mold.

Don't forget she had to do PT just like the others...but she was a female meaning she did not get as much out of the PT as her male counterparts.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are two versions of events suggested in the article both of which suggest she was not thinking "I can do anything a man can do".

I disagree. Joining the * is prime suspect #1.

*corrected

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Story 1: she randomly started a fight with another marine
Story 2: a guy was badmouthing the marines and she punched him for it (and knocked him off his feet apparently)

Knocked him to the ground. I always thought, based off of the wording, the she used a take-down move taught to you during basic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Both of these just suggest she was impulsive and/or not very bright.

Both of those suggest she was a typical military female because she had to be that way. It's not easy being a female marine (if you approach it from a gender prespective).


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I notice in reviewing the article a rather serious problem with the writing. Early on they narrate a set of events as if they were fact. Then they explain that it's the one thing we know for sure didn't happen.

Probably because of the incident report and the lies from various sides.

I'd like to see the stories from all around. And was that guy charged with manslaughter?

Originally posted by dadudemon
We're talking about an imaginary average male or female that are required to pass the same physical requirements, regardless of their size, to serve in the armed forces. Agreed?

The average male/female determined from a set of people made to pass a certain set of physical requirements?

Yeah, you'll see a more severe right-tailed skewness to the set of women's data and have a lower sample size. In practice this probably normalizes a bit in both sexes since the 90-pound-weaklings of the world don't usually try to sign up for the military.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. Because he's male, it may have ended up being a typical scuffle where they just wrestle. If it was a dude, same size as Annie, he would have been stronger so he may have been able to defend the counter-attack a bit better. No matter how you approach the topic, a dude would have fared better in that same scenario even if you "control" for size.

I'm going through the only relevant stats I have for this (champion powerlifters give me height/weight information and let me just assume they're going all out training) and I'm going to say you're probably right. Even controlling for height and weight an average man would be meaningfully stronger.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The average male/female determined from a set of people made to pass a certain set of physical requirements?

Yup...and I pointed out that implications of your question in the same post. Did you see that?

edit - I'm agreeing with this point of yours, by the way: don't know if that's obvious. Making the testing equal only ensures your women are equally physically fit. For pilots, I think they already do that...which makes the Air Force and Navy awesome-r in my eyes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, you'll see a more severe right-tailed skewness to the set of women's data and have a lower sample size.

You will?

Why?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In practice this probably normalizes a bit in both sexes since the 90-pound-weaklings of the world don't usually try to sign up for the military.

A male, 5'5", 120 lbs, is going to generally be a more physically fit specimen than a 5'5" 120 lbs female counterpart. It's not true for every single case but it is true for a very large majority.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm going through the only relevant stats I have for this (champion powerlifters give me height/weight information and let me just assume they're going all out training) and I'm going to say you're probably right. Even controlling for height and weight an average man would be meaningfully stronger.

Let it be known that you are not a thick-headed obstinate poster. But, yes, I originally thought that women were stronger than men in highly trained athletes if you control for weight: not true. It has something to do with bone-density, cross-sectional area of the muscle fiber and a third factor that I am not remember (was is the tensile strength of the tendons?)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't forget she had to do PT just like the others...but she was a female meaning she did not get as much out of the PT as her male counterparts.

I disagree. Joining the military is prime suspect #1.

She had to do basic PT, yes, but she didn't then seek out a very masculine job. She went into profession packing and sang songs for the other troops at night.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Both of those suggest she was a typical military female because she had to be that way. It's not easy being a female marine (if you approach it from a gender prespective).

I don't think randomly attacking people (talk about lack of context) is typical for any marines.
The second is such a cliche for soldiers in general that I don't think you can really put much of a gender perspective. She was trained to have that mentality.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And was that guy charged with manslaughter?

I don't think so, it sounds like NCIS finished with the case and made no charges. They'd be applying whatever legal standard they use to the case. Under non-military law, at least, manslaughter would be a difficult case to make. The other soldier probably didn't intend to kill her which would make it involuntary and that's only a crime if you commit another crime in the process which I don't think he did.

You know Zeal, I agree with you on a number of things but I find this thread to be disrespectful to the person who died.

If you think that females shouldn't be in the military there are plenty of reasons to bring up but this thread seems like it's using a tragedy to push an agenda.

Let this thread perish and if you think that women should not be in the military, let that idea stand on it's own.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She had to do basic PT, yes, but she didn't then seek out a very masculine job. She went into profession packing and sang songs for the other troops at night.

lol And it's true.

But if she were a male...she'd get more out of her PT.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think randomly attacking people (talk about lack of context) is typical for any marines.
The second is such a cliche for soldiers in general that I don't think you can really put much of a gender perspective. She was trained to have that mentality.

Actually, no, she was trained to have the opposite mentality. Keeping a cool head and logically planning out a course of action is taught quite well in the marines (all my god-brothers are marines). We cannot rule out that "i'm as good as any man, damnit!" mentality that women MUST have to succeed in the marines.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think so, it sounds like NCIS finished with the case and made no charges. They'd be applying whatever legal standard they use to the case. Under non-military law, at least, manslaughter would be a difficult case to make. The other soldier probably didn't intend to kill her which would make it involuntary and that's only a crime if you commit another crime in the process which I don't think he did.

Yes, that what's I meant: "invuluntary manslaughter". But I thought it would be aggravated manslaughter because he definitely intended her harm. She did not hurt him nearly as much as a body-slam would harm her...but he did not pre-plan to kill her so it would never get murder 1.

Originally posted by inimalist
beyond that, I'd say there is little to no evidence that gender played a decisive role here.



I think gender played a direct role, myself. In fact, and you'll sh*t yourself, I think the fact that a girl put him on his *ss was what caused him to react so harshly.

But...if she were a male and had reacted the same way, the outcome would have been positively different even if you controlled for size. This is something that Sym and I agreed to, eventually. The male would be better equipped, physically, to handle that positive outcome. (I did not read the three articles you made on TBIs mostly because I already found what I was looking for (meow)). But none of this is what I want to focus on: it is equality in testing. It should be the same regardless of gender.

Originally posted by inimalist
I haven't mentioned gender equality once, except in jest in a post you essentially reposted

Please. I'm not that dumb.

You don't have to directly mention it when each of your posts are about "it's not about teh genderz mang!"



Originally posted by inimalist
Talking about probabilities actually does the opposite of what you want ultimately as well.

Actually, this point of yours is still wrong. The probability is in a male's favor from surviving a body slam even if he hit his head, too.

CONCLUSIONS: Female sex (particularly those age > or =55 y) is associated independently with higher mortality in isolated severe TBI. This increased mortality of postmenopausal women after isolated TBI may suggest a hormonal influence and warrants further investigation


Sure, that may be post-menopausal women, but that still favors my point, not yours. IDGAF about brain function recovery after 1 year: that's not the point. It's surviving the body slam. A larger, more muscled, and denser boned male, even if the same weight, would fair better simply due to the ellastic collision of their bodies being different. Note: the male body would absorb the impact better before the momentum kicked in for the head.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think gender played a direct role, myself. In fact, and you'll sh*t yourself, I think the fact that a girl put him on his *ss was what caused him to react so harshly.

But...if she were a male and had reacted the same way, the outcome would have been positively different even if you controlled for size. This is something that Sym and I agreed to, eventually. The male would be better equipped, physically, to handle that positive outcome. (I did not read the three articles you made on TBIs mostly because I already found what I was looking for (meow)). But none of this is what I want to focus on: it is equality in testing. It should be the same regardless of gender.

sure, given a bunch of unknowable caveats about the situation we can make lots of different claims

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please. I'm not that dumb.

You don't have to directly mention it when each of your posts are about "it's not about teh genderz mang!"

which is precisely why I responded to your point about counter-factual evidence rather than anything on the previous 4 pages about gender issues

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, this point of yours is still wrong. The probability is in a male's favor from surviving a body slam even if he hit his head, too.

which point is still wrong? I'm explaining that even if the probabilities are that way, your desire to judge people independently on a case by case basis argues against judging this woman based on statistical averages.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You will?

Why?

Bah, never mind I was trying to mentally slice up a normal distribution and figure out what would happen. Bad idea.

The skewness should be the same whether you take all the scores above 0 sigma or all the scores above 1 sigma.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A male, 5'5", 120 lbs, is going to generally be a more physically fit specimen than a 5'5" 120 lbs female counterpart. It's not true for every single case but it is true for a very large majority.

I'm saying that the behavior of the applicants will probably change the distribution. Less fit people are also less likely to apply in the first place.

The same principle inflates a lot of things. All of the car insurance companies in the world can show that on average people who switch to them save a lot of money because people only switch when they stand to save a lot of money by doing so. Fertility clinics reject people with especially low odds of having kids in order to show a high success rate.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let it be known that you are not a thick-headed obstinate poster. But, yes, I originally thought that women were stronger than men in highly trained athletes if you control for weight: not true. It has something to do with bone-density, cross-sectional area of the muscle fiber and a third factor that I am not remember (was is the tensile strength of the tendons?)

Yeah, I was thinking men would be a few percent stronger for the same height and barely stronger for the same weight and height.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, given a bunch of unknowable caveats about the situation we can make lots of different claims

Sure, ignoring a bunch of knowable variables can be used to incorrectly claim "it can't be known!"



Originally posted by inimalist
which is precisely why I responded to your point about counter-factual evidence rather than anything on the previous 4 pages about gender issues

I was talking about, specifically, the things you had been saying, not anything else, in that section of my post you quoted.



Originally posted by inimalist
which point is still wrong? I'm explaining that even if the probabilities are that way, your desire to judge people independently on a case by case basis argues against judging this woman based on statistical averages.

Don't type so fast: read the edit.

Originally posted by inimalist
Talking about probabilities actually does the opposite of what you want ultimately as well. You don't want men and women to be judged by their gender based probability distributions, you claim they want them to be judged on a case by case basis. Thus, it is irrelevant if an average woman might be weaker than an average man, but rather, we would have to make specific "head trauma resistance" profiles for this woman and her fellow male soldiers.

This is basically the case I was making in a nutshell. I think dadude has essentially agreed to it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm saying that the behavior of the applicants will probably change the distribution. Less fit people are also less likely to apply in the first place.

On this, I agree. I think it takes a more aggressive female, compared to their male milityar parts, to succeed in the military. So you get a stronger attitude from your females...but that's mostly positive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The same principle inflates a lot of things. All of the car insurance companies in the world can show that on average people who switch to them save a lot of money because people only switch when they stand to save a lot of money by doing so. Fertility clinics reject people with especially low odds of having kids in order to show a high success rate.

I don't think that's comparable. What I'm talking about is literal averages with no data skew. You're comparing it with a data-skew. They aren't the same.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, I was thinking men would be a few percent stronger for the same height and barely stronger for the same weight and height.

I was thinking it is closer to about 20-30% when bodyweight was controlled. Is 20% barely in your book?

The average male and female have a 40-50% difference.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683

Even when controlling for lean-body mass, it does go back to what I said: cross-sectional muscle area. Men just have "stronger" systems.

For me, those are huge differences. Throw in that the lady was probably much smaller (she appears small next to her male counterparts...those dudes could have been big, of course...but it is more likely that she was just a small lass) than the jerk and you have a situation where she was almost hopelessly involved in a fight.

Yeah...you're right...she was just stupid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is basically the case I was making in a nutshell. I think dadude has essentially agreed to it.

Not to that first sentence but to the rest of what he said, I agree.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, ignoring a bunch of knowable variables can be used to incorrectly claim "it can't be known!"

with what force did her head impact the pavement?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was talking about, specifically, the things you had been saying, not anything else, in that section of my post you quoted.

I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of what I've said has been related to types of evidence and logic. Feel free to point out the things I've said that make you think I'm worried at all about gender equality or other such things

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't type so fast: read the edit.

I posted 6 recent studies that were about gender differences in TBI survival and recovery. The only finding of those 6 that shows a disadvantage for women is the exact thing you quoted, that deals with post-menapausal women. I posted this last page in fact.

You have now posted something to me which I think anyone who knows how to read evidence would take to suggest women have at least equal ability to recover and survive TBI, except maybe in one age demographic which is not relevant to the discussion. Only, you posted a deliberately selective quote from a single study among many.

please explain how this supports your point at all?

in fact, one of the studies has a conclusion in its abstract that says literally the opposite of what this study claims. Science isnt about single studies, and it is pretty silly for you to repost links I've already provided because you can snip out something that makes it look like your point has legs.

BTW:

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808209

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838931

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901653

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17891564

EDIT:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17891564

one from 2009 that says postmenapausal women are more likely:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19185108

If you really want to have this argument you should probably read what I'm posting about it... It will save such redundancy

EDIT: whoops, only 5, one is a duplicate

Originally posted by inimalist
with what force did her head impact the pavement?

About 90n based upon the autopsy report describing the hematoma and subcontaneous but epi-cranial swelling and macrophage activity.

Additionally, stronger necks reduce the head acceleration via active and passive tension (passive because muscle has a "relaxed" tension to it).



Originally posted by inimalist
I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of what I've said has been related to types of evidence and logic. Feel free to point out the things I've said that make you think I'm worried at all about gender equality or other such things

Cool story, bro.


Originally posted by inimalist
I posted 6 recent studies that were about gender differences in TBI survival and recovery. The only finding of those 6 that shows a disadvantage for women is the exact thing you quoted, that deals with post-menapausal women. I posted this last page in fact.

facepalm

Read again what I quoted:

"CONCLUSIONS: Female sex (particularly those age > or =55 y) is associated independently with higher mortality in isolated severe TBI. This increased mortality of postmenopausal women after isolated TBI may suggest a hormonal influence and warrants further investigation"

If you read the study, you'd know that it wasn't just the "old ladies" but almost all age-groups that showed a statistically significant mortality rate for sever TBIs.

In other words the following:

If it was a man, all things equal, he had a better chance of surviving from multiple variables such as body mass being more lean, neck strength absorbing more of the momentum, and denser bones.

Originally posted by inimalist
You have now posted something to me which I think anyone who knows how to read evidence would take to suggest women have at least equal ability to recover and survive TBI, except maybe in one age demographic which is not relevant to the discussion. Only, you posted a deliberately selective quote from a single study among many.

please explain how this supports your point at all?


I already addressed this point of yours:

IDGAF about brain function recovery after 1 year: that's not the point. It's surviving the body slam. A larger, more muscled, and denser boned male, even if the same weight, would fair better simply due to the ellastic collision of their bodies being different. Note: the male body would absorb the impact better before the momentum kicked in for the head.


Originally posted by inimalist
in fact, one of the studies has a conclusion in its abstract that says literally the opposite of what this study claims. Science isnt about single studies, and it is pretty silly for you to repost links I've already provided because you can snip out something that makes it look like your point has legs.

Originally posted by inimalist
BTW:





If you really want to have this argument you should probably read what I'm posting about it... It will save such redundancy

That's my line. Stop hiding behind studies that are almost completely irrelevant to my point.

You've done this:

Me: Nah, women are more susceptible to injury abou 85% of the time on 20 markers used.

You: Nuh uh. It takes men longer to recover.

Me: The die more often than men.

You: Nuh uh. It takes men longer to recover.

Me: That's not my point. The men die less often than the women.

You: Nuh uh. It takes men longer to recover.

Me:

Cool story, bro.





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17891564

"the relationship between gender and cognitive recovery 1 year following traumatic brain injury (TBI)."

Cool story, but almost completely irrelevant.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838931

"The objective of this study was to assess the role of gender as an independent factor in cerebral oxygenation variations following red blood cell transfusion (RBCT)."

Cool story, but almost completely irrelevant.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901653

"As peri- and postmenopausal women demonstrated improved survival, and premenopausal women did not..."


That proves you directly wrong in this particular case becaue Annie was not postmenopausal.

"There was no difference in mortality in premenopausal women compared with their male age-matched counterparts (AOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99-1.21; p = 0.0917)."



I should not have to continue after that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
About 90n based upon the autopsy report describing the hematoma and subcontaneous but epi-cranial swelling and macrophage activity.


would an average sized army man's head survive such an injury?

also, 1/5 ain't bad

EDIT:

2 of the 4 I posted deal specifically with surviving TBI:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808209



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901653



and in another, the oxygenation of damaged areas is found to be higher in women, which would increase the chance of survival were the brain injured

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838931

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901653

"As peri- and postmenopausal women demonstrated improved survival, and premenopausal women did not..."


That proves you directly wrong in this particular case becaue Annie was not postmenopausal.

"There was no difference in mortality in premenopausal women compared with their male age-matched counterparts (AOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99-1.21; p = 0.0917)."

so, women are at least as likely to survive...

what do you think i've been saying?

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808209



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901653

Covered these already.

Did you consider the fact that the male may not have even been concussed due to his differing body type IF you control for weight and height?

Another point I brought up is neck strength:

"Neck strength influences head deltaV and head injury criterion and may help explain different concussion risks in professional and youth athletes, women, and children."

Just passively, he would be better suited to surviving "whiplash" because neck strength plays a direct role in how likely and to the severity concussion occurs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Covered these already.

Did you consider the fact that the male may not have even been concussed due to his differing body type IF you control for weight and height?

Another point I brought up is neck strength:

"Neck strength influences head deltaV and head injury criterion and may help explain different concussion risks in professional and youth athletes, women, and children."

Just passively, he would be better suited to surviving "whiplash" because neck strength plays a direct role in how likely and to the severity concussion occurs.

well, that first point is nonsense. Both those studies found, point blank, no impact of gender on survival, exactly the point I've been making. What can you possibly think you've covered?

otherwise, that is a different point entirely and represents more of the counterfactuals about the scenario than any gender differences with TBI.

What those points say is that the male body would be less likely to get a TBI in the first place, rather than it having any inherent resistance allowing survival of a TBI once sustained.

Of course gender played a role in her death. If Dryden had been a man, she would have likely been heavier, so she wouldn't have gotten alpha'd so hard.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, that first point is nonsense. Both those studies found, point blank, no impact of gender on survival, exactly the point I've been making.

Actually, that's an incorrect interpretation of my argument and counter to it, as well.

Originally posted by inimalist
What can you possibly think you've covered?

What can you possibly think you've covered that counters the points I've made other than "womenz recover faster".

Originally posted by inimalist
otherwise, that is a different point entirely and represents more of the counterfactuals about the scenario than any gender differences with TBI.

A different point than, "inimalist, you're clearly wrong, using the wrong studies, are contradicted directly by one of your own studies, and are contradicted by other studies that show men are less susceptible to concussion."

Control for weight and height: a man would have been less likely to die than Annie. Fact. Move on and admit you were wrong. Why do you do this, man? You're the worst about admitting being wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
What those points say is that the male body would be less likely to get a TBI in the first place, rather than it having any inherent resistance allowing survival of a TBI once sustained.

Is this the only way I am going to get you to admit I am right is by an indirect admission of my point? You simply can't restate my original argument and pretend you've made a revelation to me.

Do I need to requote myself to show you where I've said what you're saying above?





Also, think about the context of our conversation: do you think a man is equally likely to go to the hospital for a concussion ER? Control for age, if you want. Why would that be important? Because men may get a head injury but not become concussed. Men may only go when it is bad enough to go. And so forth. There's lots of reasons I would be hesitate to use only ER-based studies to prove a point about gender when there's an obvious gender disparity on ER visits, anyway.

Here's a couple of unreported concussions, lol:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82151101/

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, that's an incorrect interpretation of my argument and counter to it, as well.



What can you possibly think you've covered that counters the points I've made other than "womenz recover faster".



A different point than, "inimalist, you're clearly wrong, using the wrong studies, are contradicted directly by one of your own studies, and are contradicted by other studies that show men are less susceptible to concussion."

Control for weight and height: a man would have been less likely to die than Annie. Fact. Move on and admit you were wrong. Why do you do this, man? You're the worst about admitting being wrong.



Is this the only way I am going to get you to admit I am right is by an indirect admission of my point? You simply can't restate my original argument and pretend you've made a revelation to me.

Do I need to requote myself to show you where I've said what you're saying above?





Also, think about the context of our conversation: do you think a man is equally likely to go to the hospital for a concussion ER? Control for age, if you want. Why would that be important? Because men may get a head injury but not become concussed. Men may only go when it is bad enough to go. And so forth. There's lots of reasons I would be hesitate to use only ER-based studies to prove a point about gender when there's an obvious gender disparity on ER visits, anyway.

wow man, this is a new low

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


He whines too much for that. Everything he does is telling the world about his lack of self confidence, particularly the whole "proud racist" persona.
Except he's not even a proud racist, he's an unashamed bigot who tries to claim he isn't racist but rather that he's just calling things how they are. "It's not me, it's them and you're progressive beta males for not agreeing with me."

Real proud racists like Julius Evola would think Zeal is a coward and a hypocrite.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. Because he's male, it may have ended up being a typical scuffle where they just wrestle. If it was a dude, same size as Annie, he would have been stronger so he may have been able to defend the counter-attack a bit better. No matter how you approach the topic, a dude would have fared better in that same scenario even if you "control" for size. Agreed.

The sense I'm getting from this discussion is that some of us here at KMC have had actual fighting experience, even if only in the sparring sense (which sometimes can get rough). My own martial arts experience (which admittedly is only moderate), made me keenly aware of what I already knew from common experience: men are tougher, faster, even a small man as compared to a large woman. And it's not just a matter of size but also ferocity. Testosterone is definitely a game-changer.

Originally posted by Mindship
And it's not just a matter of size but also ferocity. Testosterone is definitely a game-changer.

She started the fight so ferocity was clearly not something lacking.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She started the fight so ferocity was clearly not something lacking. Certainly women can be fierce (just like they can be strong). In fact, I would hope so, if a woman wants to be a warrior.

Since strength training increases testosterone in women as well as in men (especially in men), I would imagine that her combat training likely boosted her own (which may've been "higher than average" to begin with: one of the reasons, perhaps, why she became a marine).

Originally posted by inimalist
wow man, this is a new low

I know, right? Are you going out of your way to be dense for to sole purpose of trolling? That really would be a new low for you.

Here's the basic of it:

"Control for weight and height: a man would have been less likely to die than Annie. Fact. Move on and admit you were wrong."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She started the fight so ferocity was clearly not something lacking.

No she didn't: she just did a take-down and walked away like an idiot. That's hardly a "ferocious" attack. A ferocious attack would be her taking him down with some Judo (stuff taught to marines) and then pounding his face with her fists.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No she didn't: she just did a take-down and walked away like an idiot. That's hardly a "ferocious" attack.

Wow, you just went and pulled new details out of pure bullshit. That's amazing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wow, you just went and pulled new details out of pure bullshit. That's amazing.

Not really. You called it "ferocious", and I showed you that it wasn't. Try to cope a bit better, next time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not really. You called it "ferocious", and I showed you that it wasn't. Try to cope a bit better, next time.

I called it ferocious because she started a fight violently.

You pulled a story out of thin air as an attempted counter. There's absolutely no weaker response. It is about what I expect for you, though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I called it ferocious because she started a fight violently.

Not really. Being put on your ass via "grappling moves" (sounds highly judo-ish to me) is hardly the ferocious violence you're advocating.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You pulled a story out of thin air as an attempted counter. There's absolutely no weaker response. It is about what I expect for you, though.

I "pulled stuff out of thin-air", huh?



Ignoring information because someone contradicted you is about what I expect form you, so I guess we're even, bro?




Edit - You should probably calm down, think clearly, then apologize for flying off the handle. There's no reason to go from normal to rage just because I have a different definition of ferocious than you do. You may not be accustomed to seeing scuffles or fights but I assure you, "grappling" someone to the ground is hardly "ferocious" in a fight. Bag punches, eye gouges, or ground-and-pound would be much closer to "ferociously attacking".

Unless you think there isn't such thing as a woman in the world who put in Annie Dryden's situation that wouldn't have been able to knock the guy out and/or avoid getting slammed (and that's a pretty big ass-umption to make for half the world's population) then this incident says next to nothing about whether women should or shouldn't be in the military any more than it says that humans in general should or shouldn't be in the military.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Unless you think there isn't such thing as a woman in the world who put in Annie Dryden's situation that wouldn't have been able to knock the guy out and/or avoid getting slammed (and that's a pretty big ass-umption to make for half the world's population) then this incident says next to nothing about whether women should or shouldn't be in the military any more than it says that humans in general should or shouldn't be in the military.
Women tend to be smaller and weaker than men, making them less equipped for such. They have separate (lesser) standard for being in the military, putting themselves and their peers at risk. There is lots of rape in the military, making them more likely to be victims. Co-ed military results in idiotic diversity training, mucking up the system. And lastly: what kind of man allows a woman to die in a war? Despicable. A nation of cowards puts its women in harm's way.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Women tend to be smaller and weaker than men, making them less equipped for such. They have separate (lesser) standard for being in the military, putting themselves and their peers at risk. There is lots of rape in the military, making them more likely to be victims. Co-ed military results in idiotic diversity training, mucking up the system. And lastly: what kind of man allows a woman to die in a war? Despicable. A nation of cowards puts its women in harm's way.
Nothing of what you said negated or refuted any of what I said. Nor does rape have anything to do with this case, it's another subject entirely.

A man who doesn't treat a woman as an object to be protected but rather as a person?

I just gave several reasons why women shouldn't be in the military.

Do you think that women are incapable of making their own decisions or living on their own, Zeal?

I think you ought to move to Saudi Arabia. Your views on gender would be the societal norm there.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I just gave several reasons why women shouldn't be in the military.
None of which were particularly strong.

As contrasted with the argument for allowing women to serve: BECAUSE I SAID SO.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
As contrasted with the argument for allowing women to serve: BECAUSE I SAID SO.
Because people who are qualified to serve should be allowed to serve their country?

And many women, whether you like it or not, are qualified to serve.

Which translates to BECAUSE I SAID SO, whereas I can point to the deleterious results of allowing women into the military.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Which translates to BECAUSE I SAID SO, whereas I can point to the deleterious results of allowing women into the military. \
Lol, just lol.

At best you're being dismissive of women's abilities.

If a woman signs up for the military she knows what she's getting into. Ideally rapes would be something that wouldn't happen if discipline was maintained among the ranks, as it stands you're basically blaming it on the victim, which doesn't surprise me one bit but which would offend any normal, sensible person. You could apply the rape argument to basically anything. "No coed schools, rapes might happen"

Hell, what's to say that the risk of rape means women shouldn't live in separate cities from men who aren't their husbands or relatives?

The fact that a woman is smaller and weaker on average than a man makes little difference most of the time considering hand to hand combat isn't nearly as important in modern warfare as it was in the days of battleaxes when your gender politics were in vogue.

I'd be more concerned with marksmanship abilities and psychological strength than brute force or size in a soldier.

You could have a seven foot tall, 300 lb moose who can't shoot for shit and snaps the first time a mortar shell goes off in his base.

Diversity training is something necessary to ensure you don't have a bunch of...well...guys like you running the military.

Oh and once more for effect: NOTHING IN THIS CASE FORWARDS YOUR ARGUMENTS THAT WOMEN SHOULDN'T BE SOLDIERS

This is why progressives ruin everything.

No, I'm not blaming it on the woman. I'm saying that the sheer number of rapes that occur in the military put women in danger, and they should be excluded for their own safety.

So why does the military have different fitness standards for men and women? Because of idiots like yourself, no doubt.

Women? Psychological strength? Good God, you've got to be shitting me. Women are far more emotional than men on average, and they are twice as likely to suffer from PTSD than men are.

What the military needs is a bunch of lesbians telling soldiers how they need to respect womynkind. That'll help our military!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo

No, I'm not blaming it on the woman. I'm saying that the sheer number of rapes that occur in the military put women in danger, and they should be excluded for their own safety.

Wow, that's not only demeaning of women, it's also lazy and surrendering to the "inevitability" of rape.


Lol, where have I suggested I want different standards for men or women? In fact, the only person here who wants different standards between the sexes in any way seems to be you.


Lol, way to make a blanket statement with no support.


And its moments like this where in case I forget you remind me that you're basically just a troll trying to be the forum adversary. ''

For you, Zeal:
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs37/f/2008/263/e/2/Trolls_by_Whynne.png

The military is not supposed to be an equal opportunity employer. The duty of the military is to be as efficient as possible. Will women disrupt this? Yes. Will sexual assault happen? Yes. The people who end up in the military generally aren't quality human beings. Never have been, though the neocons don't want you to believe that. They're the guys who didn't have anywhere else to go in life, so they took up arms. Doesn't mean I don't respect them, but they're not the most well-adjusted people out there.

So why do different standards exist?

I don't need statistics to prove that women are more emotional than men; anyone who has spent any time around women knows that's the case. And I'm sure you can look up PTSD on Wikipedia to learn the statistics.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The military is not supposed to be an equal opportunity employer. The duty of the military is to be as efficient as possible. Will women disrupt this? Yes. Will sexual assault happen? Yes. The people who end up in the military generally aren't quality human beings. Never have been, though the neocons don't want you to believe that. They're the guys who didn't have anywhere else to go in life, so they took up arms. Doesn't mean I don't respect them, but they're not the most well-adjusted people out there.

By this same logic we shouldn't try to prevent murder and fights between soldiers either...so what...the only people qualified to be in the military are people who have proven the ability to be able to watch their own back to prevent shiving and raping...

...hmm...good idea Zeal, we'll field an army entirely of dangerous prisoners.

Actually, you'd probably approve of that.

Once more, rather than keeping women out of the military who sign up of their own will to "protect them" it should be our duty to ensure that discipline is maintained so that this sort of thing wouldn't happen.


Combination of affirmative action and idiots like you who think that women need to be coddled or protected.


In other words you're talking out of your ass.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Combination of affirmative action and idiots like you who think that women need to be coddled or protected. They do! They're all soft, and squishy.

Seems similar to same idiot mentality of blame-shifting that happens in some Islamic countries were women have to cover themselves in blankets and go about dressed like a silly ninja.

'Men can't control themselves, so lets hide a woman's form.'

Minimize the threat of rape by minimizing the potential rape victims. Again, the military isn't for upstanding citizens, especially with the push to enlist minorities.

This is what male feminists actually believe. Here's a closer snapshot of reality:

Military: Fine, we'll allow women in the military but they have to pass the same tests as men.
Bulldyke feminist: EXCUSE ME THERE AREN'T ENOUGH WOMEN IN THE MILITARY, YOU ARE DISCRIMINATION
Military: Fine, we'll lower the standards so women can make it in.
Bulldyke feminist: WOMEN HAVE TO PASS THE SAME TEST AS MEN SO THEY'RE JUST AS QUALIFIED
Beta male feminist f*ggot: Diversity is our strength!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Minimize the threat of rape by minimizing the potential rape victims.

Kind of like taking away the drugs from the drug addict? Or removing the alcoholic from the bar?

I partially agree with you but I do not like to victim blame unless the victim did something to get victimized. For instance, like taunting or picking on a dog that retaliates by attacking you...but failing to wear a full-body covering does not justify an "ok" reason to raep a Muslim woman. Does that clarify my stance?


Or how about this: remove all men from the military and only let highly qualified females serve? The men are the problem, not the victim. We can't blame the women for the stupid men. I know, that sounds awfully feminist of me but I'm a lukewarm feminist.


Another solution is to keep "Synch-cordings"* for every soldier to prove with 100% veritiability that a person was or was not raepd, then beat the utter living sh*t out of the r*pists and put them in solitary confinement for 2-5 years.

*This thing is an audio-video recording that is always on, 24/7. Our memory technologies do not allow for something like this to happen, yet, due to size and energy limitations. However, it is the only "best" solution. The FBI stats show that there are too many false-accusations of raep and that hurts the individuals that actually WERE raepd...people don't believe them as often (even though the false-accusations only account for less than 10% of reports, iirc.)


Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Military: Fine, we'll allow women in the military but they have to pass the same tests as men.
Bulldyke feminist: EXCUSE ME THERE AREN'T ENOUGH WOMEN IN THE MILITARY, YOU ARE DISCRIMINATION
Military: Fine, we'll lower the standards so women can make it in.
Bulldyke feminist: WOMEN HAVE TO PASS THE SAME TEST AS MEN SO THEY'RE JUST AS QUALIFIED
Beta male feminist f*ggot: Diversity is our strength!


This hyperbole actually captures the truth. We want to eat our cake while having it, too. (A saying that I am stuck with a lot, lately). We cannot make the standards equal while creating more gender representation equality at the same time. As a necessity, the more rigorous standards will automatically disqualify many women because we are a sexually asymmetric species. It just so happens that the males are bigger and stronger.

Find me a 5'2" 105 lbs. (kind of like our former cheerleader Annie Dryden) female that can carry a 60 lbs. pack (in addition to the body armor) 40 miles and I'll find you an extreme exception. I do not think the extreme majority of males at that size could accomplish that task, as well.

I would be very happy with a 5'10" 160 lbs., in shape, female joining the arm or marines. She could probably accomplish that task. It might be difficult, but she could do it a majority of the time. Her gender does not matter, in this instance: only that she is physically capable of carrying her armor, rations, ammo, guns, knife/knives, and any other utilities she may have to haul in her pack.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems similar to same idiot mentality of blame-shifting that happens in some Islamic countries were women have to cover themselves in blankets and go about dressed like a silly ninja.

'Men can't control themselves, so lets hide a woman's form.'
Which is why Zeal should move to Saudi Arabia. He hates Israel, believes women need to be protected and watched over by men, it all works out.

I'm not victim blaming at all. I'm not saying that it's the fault of women. I'm saying that if you have women in the military, they will be raped. Period. The best way to keep them from getting raped is to keep them out of the military.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm saying that if you have women in the military, they will be raped. Period. The best way to keep them from getting raped is to keep them out of the military.

I agree that that is the absolute most effective way to keep women from getting raped IN the military. If they aren't there to begin with, then they can't get raped. 100% effective.






However, women will still get raped by the US military.






On another note: if it is so common (and common knowledge) for women to get raped in the military, WTF are girls thinking when they join up? Are they thinking, "That shit won't happen to me"? Being a girl can be awesome in ways...but it also sucks major balls. I like the idea of that Star Trek: TNG episode where that planet had a female dominated society. The men were smaller and weaker than the women and the women ruled the extreme majority of everything: from business to government. Commander Riker got his freak on, obviously because he was large enough...or something.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm not victim blaming at all. I'm not saying that it's the fault of women. I'm saying that if you have women in the military, they will be raped. Period. The best way to keep them from getting raped is to keep them out of the military.

If women go to university, they will be raped

if women walk on the streets, they will be raped

if women do X, they will be raped

the existence of the phenomenon of rape really isn't a reason to restrict women's rights... or, it means women should have no rights and need to be kept in doors under constant protection by castrated men who have no ability to rape them

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fair point. Where is the line, though?

Meaning, at what threshold of rape occurring do we say, "okay, that's the line."?

Military definitely has "above normal" levels of rape. Numbers say that 1/3 of women are raped in the military.

WTF?!?!?!?!?!

That's an epidemic, to me.

but lets compare scenarios

if 1/3 women in university were being raped, would the answer be women can't get educated or that the universities aren't doing enough to protect women and police their own campuses?

Originally posted by inimalist
If women go to university, they will be raped

if women walk on the streets, they will be raped

if women do X, they will be raped

the existence of the phenomenon of rape really isn't a reason to restrict women's rights... or, it means women should have no rights and need to be kept in doors under constant protection by castrated men who have no ability to rape them
Feminist logic: TRYING TO SHOEHORN WOMEN INTO AN ALL-MALE ORGANIZATION OF SOCIAL MISFITS IS THE SAME AS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK

Drink bleach.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Feminist logic: TRYING TO SHOEHORN WOMEN INTO AN ALL-MALE ORGANIZATION OF SOCIAL MISFITS IS THE SAME AS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK

Drink bleach.

go back far enough and yes, walking down the street was an all male activity where women required male escorts

history fail

Originally posted by inimalist
go back far enough and yes, walking down the street was an all male activity where women required male escorts

history fail
Don't even need to go back in history, that's still somewhat the case in certain parts of the world.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Don't even need to go back in history, that's still somewhat the case in certain parts of the world.

lol, I wonder if Zeal would make the same statement about shoehorning women into the right to vote?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I wonder if Zeal would make the same statement about shoehorning women into the right to vote?
Remember, inimalist, Zeal doesn't hate women, he just thinks they're inferior in every way that matters and gets annoyed when people think they should be given equal rights.

But he doesn't hate them.

Not one bit.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm not victim blaming at all. I'm not saying that it's the fault of women. I'm saying that if you have women in the military, they will be raped. Period. The best way to keep them from getting raped is to keep them out of the military.

Men get raped in the military too. Army of eunuchs?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like the idea of that Star Trek: TNG episode where that planet had a female dominated society. The men were smaller and weaker than the women and the women ruled the extreme majority of everything... Star Trek, meh.

http://0.tqn.com/d/classicfilm/1/0/d/9/-/-/queen_outer_space.jpg
*sigh*


Originally posted by dadudemon
just trying to figure out why humans are so rapey. IMHO...
Rape is not about sex: it's about power. Power compensates for feelings of mortality. Humans are very aware of their mortality; ergo, we go to great lengths to acquire power. Not just rape: war is a biggie; godlike destruction of others, of the environment. Hell, we even imagine characters that can bust planets with a single punch.

We duh best.

Originally posted by dadudemon
On another note: if it is so common (and common knowledge) for women to get raped in the military, WTF are girls thinking when they join up? Are they thinking, "That shit won't happen to me"?

Soldiers also get killed and maimed, you know, every soldier goes in with knowledge that the job has serious risks. The mentality is supposedly "I want to serve my country, the risk is worth it do that" or sometimes "I have few other choices and they give me good benefits if I get through it, the risk is worth it". I can't think of a reason these wouldn't also apply to women who join the army, even if the added risks weight the decision toward not joining.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Soldiers also get killed and maimed, you know, every soldier goes in with knowledge that the job has serious risks. The mentality is supposedly "I want to serve my country, the risk is worth it do that" or sometimes "I have few other choices and they give me good benefits if I get through it, the risk is worth it". I can't think of a reason these wouldn't also apply to women who join the army, even if the added risks weight the decision toward not joining.

Do 1/3 of all armed services members definitely get killed?

Do 74% of them definitely get sexually assaulted in some way (raped is one of them)?


Those that join the marines almost always know what they want to do when they join (field ops, communications, mess hall (this is what my godbrother joined the marines for: no shit), some want to work on an aircraft carrir, etc. Some idiot rednecks (some I actually know) actually say, "I want to die for my country." So, yes, some people join knowing full well that they can die and they want to see combat 'in the shit'. No girl joins up and says, "Man, I hope I get raped." WTF!?!?! It's called "rape" because it isn't wanted.

Originally posted by inimalist
but lets compare scenarios

if 1/3 women in university were being raped, would the answer be women can't get educated or that the universities aren't doing enough to protect women and police their own campuses?

No, separate but equal institutions.




I keed! I keed!


They could definitely separate out genders and some colleges are like that.

Edit - However, I would distinguish armed services with volitional education. A soldier or officer does NOT have as many rights as a regular citizen. This is something people need to consider before joining. It is a noble cause, for sure, to serve you fellow-man. However, it comes with consequences. College? Meh, you don't have to go. You can do it all online, too. No reason to risk rape if it was epidemic in college. Also, it's pretty easy to avoid rape in college. When you're one woman among 130 men in a desert with no way to quickly travel from location to location, it is a bit more difficult to escape the rape.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do 1/3 of all armed services members definitely get killed?

Do 74% of them definitely get sexually assaulted in some way (raped is one of them)?


Those that join the marines almost always know what they want to do when they join (field ops, communications, mess hall (this is what my godbrother joined the marines for: no shit), some want to work on an aircraft carrir, etc. Some idiot rednecks (some I actually know) actually say, "I want do die for my country." So, yes, some people join knowing full well that they can die and they want to see combat 'in the shit'. No girl joins up and says, "Man, I hope I get raped." WTF!?!?! It's called "rape" because it isn't wanted.

but isn't this sort of a backward way of looking at it anyways?

if a woman meets the physical qualification to be in the army, isn't it the army's responsibility to make sure nobody commits a federal criminal offense against them?

such staggering numbers seem to indicate a failure in the army rather than in women (which is born out in many of the rape cases I've heard about, as officers try to brush them under the rug and protect the soldiers responsible).

Its like, abuse of the mentally handicapped and elderly is alarmingly high in care facilities. By this logic, we should just stop sending people who need care into such facilities, rather than addressing the issue of people working there that need to be stopped from abusing them.

The same could be said of people who prey on children in terms of scouts, churches and schools.

I don't see the logic behind the "women shouldn't have rights because we refuse to protect them" argument... not that i think you are explicitly making it...

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, separate but equal institutions.




I keed! I keed!


They could definitely separate out genders and some colleges are like that.

to be honest, if that were actually the case in universities, I wouldn't be entirely against separate institutions as a pragmatic and sort of temporary solution

Its more like what I was saying above, that women are being abused is not really a problem with the women...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do 1/3 of all armed services members definitely get killed?

Do 74% of them definitely get sexually assaulted in some way (raped is one of them)?

STRAWMAN BAAWW STRAWMANN BAWW BAWWWW


There are serious risks associated with the position. Men who join the organization are aware of them and join anyway. The greater risks for women don't make me think there's a different thought process going on just that they're going to be less likely to join because of it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Those that join the marines almost always know what they want to do when they join (field ops, communications, mess hall (this is what my godbrother joined the marines for: no shit), some want to work on an aircraft carrir, etc. Some idiot rednecks (some I actually know) actually say, "I want to die for my country." So, yes, some people join knowing full well that they can die and they want to see combat 'in the shit'.

Why exactly are women incapable of having these thoughts? These and the reasons I listed seem like the most likely reasons for a person to join the army despite the risks involved.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No girl joins up and says, "Man, I hope I get raped." WTF!?!?! It's called "rape" because it isn't wanted.

WHAT? Where did you get this from what I posted?