Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIf they fought someone 100 pounds heavier than them, they wouldn't be "larger". They'd be the smaller person.
Not if they're stupid enough to fight a person 100 pounds heavier than them which this woman apparently was.
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 Zeal Ex Nihilo
[CITATION NEEDED]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808209
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 truewomen'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."
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."
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 don't see a lot of value to this "could have, if this" type of argumentation... [/B]
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."
If the situation were different it would have been different. [/B]
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 no evidence that points to gender playing a major role in this specific case, [/B]
I certainly see evidence that points to gender (physical gender) playing a significant role in this specific case.
I, in no way see anything that suggests this woman was motivated by the "I-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do" type mentality...[/B]
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?
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? [/B]
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/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.