posted on September 10, 2002 11:22:23 AM new
Aposter, aren't you sick and tired of men using that sorry old excuse? It's been used to keep us out of state universities, many jobs, various positions in the military (I guess because some men think about positions too much - lol). I'm suprised Borillar had the guts to bring it up. Trolling?
posted on September 10, 2002 12:33:27 PM new
B may be trolling, but I think not.
Now that female researchers, doctors, lawyers, professors, politicians (and a couple generals) are becoming more numerous it is becoming all too apparent how our history has been skewed.
Someone, on some radio program, said they wondered what the country would be if men and women had been considered equal from the start. Using both kinds of minds instead of always seeing the male way of thinking throughout U.S. history.
Concerning citizenship. Because the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were written for and by the white male (financially well-off for the times) establishment, they should be completely rewritten. No more amendments. The new documents would be for ALL people and by ALL people. It would say ALL citizens are created equal, be they male, female, (or both), black, white, yellow or green (because we might have known aliens by the time this ever came to pass). The rewriting would be done with all skin colors, all sexes and all incomes present in the room. It wouldn't be written by attorneys who can spin a document, it would just be written by
plain spoken teachers or professors...with no connections anywhere.
While we all should have the same rights here, I believe they are for those here legally. If you are here, breaking our laws, there should be no free lunches or free medical care. Multi-national companies and larger farms are pushing to have Mexican nationals here for work they say no
one else will do. Do you think that is true? Is this just another myth by the food and agricultural industry? My nephew picked fruit and was happy to have a job one summer. But, if the farmer could have gotten someone for less illegally my relative might not have been able to earn college money.
We had break-ins in the neighborhood regularly while developers were tearing down wooded areas for mansions. In these cases anyway, the police always say nothing can be done, because these are day laborers. Once they pick off the neighboring house near where they are working on their lunch hour, they disappear. If we had control of who was in this country we wouldn't have this problem. Or at least we would have some documentation to go after the guilty party.
Edit: to move something.
[ edited by aposter on Sep 10, 2002 12:41 PM ]
posted on September 10, 2002 12:54:10 PM new
Aposter, I am not trying to justify the way that the military looks at women's role in combat. I can tell you what it was like at the time that I was in the Navy. That was during the Carter years. In the Navy, there is a rotation of assignments. So many months at sea duty, then so many months on shore duty. It depended upon what the Navy's requirements were for your job specialty. For instance, mine was 36 months at sea duty, then 36 months at shore duty. This is called Rotation.
At the time that I was in, since women were in the Navy, but could not serve on any ships but tugboats, they were stuck on shore. This meant that the rotation for many job specialities was skewed, like 60 months sea duty to 12 months shore duty. Men in the Navy were clearly not happy with that.
And at the same time, women were also exempt from any duty that required lifting and a woman could press gang several sailors into doing a heavy chore for her. Can you understand why men felt that women did not being out at sea on combat ships?
Aposter, you make light of the physical work and requirements aboard ship, but you have no idea of what it is like. If you did, you would agree with me. Were there skinny sailors with small muscles? Some, not many. And they were required to do every bit of heavy work as the other men were, or were booted out of the service. Can you understand what the men felt like when women were not required to do that?
And as far as the advantages of having women onboard. I can't see it. A combat ship is not an office building. You mock men in your ignorance that you posted above. You clearly do not understand what it is like. The blur of days goes by because everyone onboard ship works 12 hours on, 12 hours off, seven days a week without holidays. Only when at anchor is the routine different. And you have no concept of what it is like to be a young man with heavy loads of testosterone coursing through their veins. With the heavy lifting, few women could manage it. Maybe some of those pumped-up east-German athletes that we used to see back during the cold war at Olympic games could do it. When people's lives are at stake, being politically correct has to take a back seat. You have no sympathy for the men and openly mock them, but you expect others to respect the women in this?
posted on September 10, 2002 01:04:21 PM new
LOL @ It would say ALL citizens are created equal, be they male, female, (or both), black, white, yellow or green (because we might have known aliens by the time this ever came to pass). You're so right on that..
[i]It wouldn't be written by attorneys who can spin a document, it would just be written by
plain spoken teachers or professors...with no connections anywhere[/i]. No connections anywhere? The teachers union is a pretty strong union and I just heard yesterday that something like 90% of the college professors are liberals. So...for me I think I'd like to keep it the way it is, and we can just stick to arguing what our founding fathers meant by this or that. Plus the attorneys, even if they didn't write the document(s), would still be in court challenging everything on it anyway. "NO, they meant this.. they meant that."
posted on September 10, 2002 01:05:18 PM new
I was a Merchant Marine for 12 years. You do the job, or you will not get the job, no ifs ands or whatevers.
There were women who couldnt cut it, and there was just as many men who went down the gang plank,The first trip out was the indictator.If you put the sexes in groups,then the argument wins,That women belong in the kitchen,and all men are born macho and level headed.
We all know that is not a true assesment for either group.
Nasa sent out questionars to the women on ships who had been at sea 5 or more months at a time,to get an idea if women were able to be in a space program.You'll never guess what job I applied for later.LOL, 2 more endorsments on my Z card and I would have gotten in the program.
Its not about grouping.
posted on September 10, 2002 01:09:59 PM new
Borillar, women heard many of the same excuses when they first joined fire departments, rescue squads, and police departments. I've been in classes where I was the only female and have had jobs where 90 % of the staff was male.
posted on September 10, 2002 01:43:46 PM new
When I was in my twenties, I weighed about 120 pounds. I spent a few years throwing clay and that entailed moving bags of clay around. I used a lot of fire clay which came in 100 pound bags and I was the person who unloaded it from my car and hauled it up or down stairs. I can attest that I did not look like an Eastern European swimmer or whatever other stereotype you have in mind.
posted on September 10, 2002 02:07:38 PM new
It's what I was saying: a lot of men do wash out as physically unfit. A merchant marine is hard physical work, but is it the same as trying to emergency repair a sinking ship on fire being blasted apart in battle? I have not been comparing everyday grunt work. Who is going to ask the men to volunteer to find out if women can handle it? I won't be the one to ask them risk their lives inorder to be politically correct.
nstead, I see women as taking over other combat roles, particularily fighter aircraft and attack helicopters, where women's advantages are maximized. It only makes sense to utilize the different sexes where both can use thier advantages the best.
As far as emergency services goes, that's a case in point. Firefighter schools had to drop drown the heavy lifting bar in order to become politically correct and allow women. The point was made that women did not have the upper-body strength to do the fireman's carry down sets of stairs on fire. They accomodated the women by allowing them to drag a person by the boots, with the victim's head thunking heavily down each step. By the time the victim is out to the ambulance, their brains are mud pies.
But how will you accomodate women when sailors are at their stations in combat and a large hole is blasted there and every hand is needed to quickly fix the disaster before everyone dies? Do you say, "oh! She's a female, so she gets to do THAT job versus THIS job." Hell no! In a crisis, everyone is equal and is expected to pull their own equally - no accomodations are possible!
It's like I said: combat ships are not office buildings as the chance of disaster is ever present.
posted on September 10, 2002 02:07:46 PM new
Oh,I almost forgot,We worked 4 on 8 off,and you were expected to put in another 4 in overtime while at sea.At docking or an emergency,It was nothing to log a 18 hour day.I would have loved to have had 12 hours rest.
Being deprived of sleep is the main cause of many of the Maritime accidents.
posted on September 10, 2002 02:14:36 PM new
Well, I see the comment about 100 pounds of clay, but will add my own.
No, I don't think mocking is the right word.
But even if I did, many women have had enough of centuries of men's mocking! Can you say bad breast jokes, butt jokes, blond jokes, stupid blond jokes, Mother-In-Law jokes, bad women driver jokes, secretary jokes, housewife jokes, prostitute jokes, bad cooking jokes...need I go on? How many jokes are there about men, old ones anyway?
No, it would be considered justice in some ways. Examples: Bad women driver jokes? The worst drivers in the U.S. are 18 to 24 yr old men, not women. M-I-L jokes... F-I-Ls are just as bad, women just haven't created any humor about them!
I was commenting on what you meant by "women screaming" they couldn't (you mocked) do it, that somehow women aren't as strong as men. Have you ever seen a young mother with a child strapped to her back, picking up a 4 yr old with one arm and a 5 yr old in the other. How many
pounds do you think she is lifting? How much energy do you think it takes to push a 7 or 8 pound baby out of your body, without any drugs to wash away any pain? Would it feel the same as a bullet going into your abdomen, or testicles? I believe it would, and the pain sometimes last for 36 hours, it isn't extracted immediately! But, you will never know how that feels because you are not allowed to feel it. Just as we are not allowed to feel how testosterone feels pulsing through a male. But, we are are allowed to be discriminated against because of it.
How many women couldn't carry the load in your group (battalion?) on land? One or one thousand? I have found when men state women couldn't "cut the mustard" as they used to say, they are talking about one women, not a thousand.
How many men couldn't carry their load? How many went awol? I hope that is the word. There were many listed in the civil war records I research. I am talking hundreds not pulling their weight. Shouldn't women be judged by what each does on their own merits, not by what others do?
No, I am not mocking I am just angry. I do believe that ship duty was lonely, just as many jobs can be lonely. The partner waiting at the other end can be just as lonely.
No, I have never been on military duty on a ship and don't know what it is like. I could not sign up because I didn't want to be a nurse. This is supposed to be a free country, we are all
paying the wages of military (no matter how small) and should be able to partake of those wages
if desired. Right?
AND, I was not mocking and was deadly serious about females and ships. If we are such a deterrent to men, then lets get ships and whole units that accommodate females only. It is time. The army saw fit to place black men in all black troops, and then ignore their bravery, why not have all female troops?
posted on September 10, 2002 02:25:27 PM new
Borillar,I had to do 3 months fire fighting
school at A&M because I worked in the engine room. Never was I told to drag someone by their heels,I can't imagine anyone doing it. The body I carried down stairs was over my shoulder. If the body had been a huge body,and I knew I couldnt carry it,common sense would tell me to get help.
posted on September 10, 2002 02:36:50 PM new
aposter,There are ships crewed with women only.
They have been around many years.Not
kidding,tankers and freighters.
The only male was the Captains husband along for the ride.
Germany and Scandinavian(sp?) Countrys have used women maritimers before WW2.
posted on September 10, 2002 02:45:22 PM new
Even as a fifty year old woman,in two days I planted a variety of shrubs, perennials, and trees (about 76 plants - most not perennials) including hauling all the bags of wet mulch and soil amendments and digging the soil.
My local rescue squad is headed by a man who is probably close to 200 pounds overweight but he still goes out on call. Don't be so quick to categorize people. People can do a variety of jobs well despite what they look like or what sex they are.
My father was a submariner during WWII. He could tell some tales about how men performed under pressure.
posted on September 10, 2002 03:04:05 PM new
I *knew* someone would contradict me about the fireman and carrying! Now, when they first let women into the Frie Schools here, the ones that didn't wash out got to do just what I was saying - drag them by the boots. If you need to not carry a heavy man and go get another person, as you said common sense, aren't you really saying that it takes two womem firefighters to do one man's job?
Believe me, if women could do the physical lifting required of men in the services, I doubt hardly anyone would have a greivence. So far on this issue, all I've done is to try to explain why the millitary has such an outlook on the subject. So far, all I get is politically correct talk. Instead, show me the science. Show me the hard data and facts concerning women's equal roles in the army in combat or in the combat marines or aboard Navy combat vessals. If it's good science, I'm more than happy to change my thoughts about the subject. I just will not give in to politically correct talk when lives are on the line, that's all.
posted on September 10, 2002 03:39:03 PM new "If it's good science, I'm more than happy to change my thoughts about the subject. I just will not give in to politically correct talk when lives are on the line, that's all."
Read that again junquemama...Borillar said that his opinion would not be based on PC basis alone. He said basically, show me the science.
posted on September 10, 2002 03:52:52 PM new
junquemama
aposter, There are ships crewed with women only. They have been around many years. Not kidding, tankers and freighters. ] aposter, There are ships crewed with women only. They have been around many years. Not kidding, tankers and freighters.
No kidding! I would love to read about them. These are the Germans and Scandinavians?
I was thinking about the soldiers who killed or beat their wives in one of the Carolina military bases recently and wonder how much sexism is still brought to men through services the military provides and military officers themselves, especially in the special forces. Or how much is actually combat stress and how much come from attitudes of officers and military papers themselves?
I was supposed to sell this WW II booklet for my Dad, but kept it after reading the first few pages last year. I just remembered it and brought it down. I realize it was from 1945, but sometimes attitudes seem the same.
I have a friend who regularly works at a round table with very high level officers in one of the armed forces. She said she has to constantly assert herself, because her ideas
are not taken seriously otherwise. Too bad. She is an extremely thoughtful & smart person and I bet has a lot to contribute if allowed to do so.
B: I wonder if the army had sound science when they wrote this:
-------------
From Veteran to Civilian, Special Section, Survey Midmonthly, November 1945, P.3.
LONG RANGE PROBLEMS
First paragraph:
"A different but no less serious problem confronts the young veteran to whom military experience has brought maturity, toughness, and self-sufficiency, but who now returns to a childish young wife whom he has seen only fleetingly, if at all, since they were married. He finds that she has botched her job of managing their home and children. A whole train of adjustment problems follow in the wake of his return." <snip>
----------------
Was this a positive way to greet the young man coming back from war to his wife? Who, of course, didn't have the choice of going to fight if she wanted?
Listening to my relatives in the Mid-West the wives weren't sitting around twiddling their thumbs. My Mom had a farm to run with my grandfather who wasn't well. My uncles were off in the war, so farming was left to her and her sisters. She regularly did a lot of the farming anyway, just had
more of it.
edit: ubb
[ edited by aposter on Sep 10, 2002 03:58 PM ]
posted on September 10, 2002 03:53:56 PM new
If it is the same good science that points out, how many men buckle under pressure,or
have mental breakdowns at sea,or dislike women doing what was considered a mans vocation,That science? I don't believe there is any stats on any of it.
Nasa liked their studies of women,and encouraged the Government to fund training for women cadets.They handle solidarity easier then the men.
The women were thankful for the peace and quite.
posted on September 10, 2002 04:07:18 PM new
aposter,Wish I had followed thru with my curious nature of the women crewed ships.
I wanted to board one that was pointed out to me,Can't remember where we were anchored,awaiting orders for docking.
The ship in question loaded and was gone before we tied up. It was a freighter,And I was on a tanker,across the harbor from each other.
The men on the ship I was on,Never took their eyes off that ship,It was if all their dreams were docked on another shore.
posted on September 10, 2002 04:26:12 PM new
Helen, What's My Position Here? They have it all figured out. The dominate top positon of course!
This was also on page 3, concerning men and mental fitness:
From Veteran to Civilian, Special Section, Survey Midmonthly, November 1945, P.3.
LONG RANGE PROBLEMS
<snip> "The public is most aware of (but probably least understands) the high proportion of neuropsychiatric difficulties. The serious incidence of mental disease was brought home forcibly to Americans when selective service figures were released showing that 1,825,000 men were rejected for this reason. The proportion now returning with a similar diagnosis is also high." <snip>
The proportion of men returning is also high?
If men are more stable, why the high numbers of mental distress? I wonder how women would have fared? I wonder if the rate of mental illness in women now is as great as men's after service. I don't hear about women killing their young or their husbands. Or maybe I just haven't heard..
posted on September 10, 2002 04:29:25 PM new
Gravid, the problem that I am having with that thought is not in its essence. I wholeheartedly agree that the ideals espoused by the Declaration of Independence is both unique and egalitarian. They are ideals created by mere mortals that should be placed just under those made by God, IMHO.
However, utopian ideals are just that - utopian. They are ideas that we should try to live up to, but not expect perfection at. That's because perfection does not exist in this universe, except for God. Humankind is imperfect, and so, cannot create a perfect thing, in my experience and estimation. The point I'm trying to make is that just because we do or cannot live up the idyllic principles put forth by our utopian ideals does not invalidate them. There has to be a balance between perfection and imperfection in order for any political or idyllic system to exist. We have to measure out the facts in order to determine the reality of a situation versus what we'd like to have instead. It is possible to have ideals of perfection and to also allow imperfection to exist. That it is the effort to become perfect that is the purpose, rather than the perfection of the ideals themselves.
My only concern if we forego the laws concerning Citizenship is that we will still need to examine everyone who wants to be here. Simply put, not everyone who wishes to be here can be here. If you'll remember when we did this about ten years or so ago with the Cubans, you'll recall that Castro opened up the prisons and sent everyone to American shores. Not just the political prisoners, but also the murders, rapists, child-killers, felons of every sort. We only discovered this when an alarmingly high number of Cubans from the Boatlift were shot and killed by the police and the rest rounded up, as many of the criminally minded went on a rampage of crime and violence. You can read up on it and its not pretty and it is a factual example.
I am also not saying that we should keep Citizenship either. I like the idea that we can have justification to protect ourselves from those who do not belong here: criminals, the contagious sick, and other major problem causes like that. Another one is economics. I guarantee you that a billion wouldn't step foot on our shores in the first year, but there would be such an influx as to make economic disasters through out the entire country. For instance, what happens when 200 people show up for the same dishwashing job? And when that's the case everywhere? I recall that happening in the late 1970s and 1980s. If we added say, 25 million people per year, would it be wise to end up having 500 people applying for the same dishwashing job? Clearly, there have to be some restrictions there and I am all for it. I am for immigrants applying to enter this country, I am for immigrants being physically examined by competent medical staff, and a thorough police background check from the nation that the applicant came from. I believe that we can legally absorb many more people than we currently are, excluding those who are here illegally.
If not Citizenship, then what? A system of quotas based upon economics, medical checks, background checks? That won't have Thomas Jefferson's grave turning over, I can assure you.
posted on September 10, 2002 05:07:36 PM newShow me the hard data and facts concerning women's equal roles in the army in combat or in the combat marines or aboard Navy combat vessals. If it's good science, I'm more than happy to change my thoughts about the subject.
Umm. I can't follow the logic. Women aren't allowed in combat so where would the data come from? Uh oh, there's no data. Ergo, they can't go into combat.
posted on September 10, 2002 08:35:58 PM new
Clearly, you won't find what you need there, saabsister. Maybe other avenues of approach? The straight line is seldom the correct approach.
posted on September 10, 2002 11:58:00 PM new
I know that sounds reasonable to most people Borillar. And I assume there would be quite a wave of pent up demand due to current policies. But saying that it is just not possible to do what is correct because of human limitations rings hollow to me when there is such a gap between what IS possible and the fearful xenophobic restrictions I see in place now. It sounds too much like my slimeball brother-in-law's complaint that it is expecting too much of a weak human to only sleep with his wife. And he is sincere as can be, but I still find the gap between his performance and the ideal far too wide to swallow. His occasional nights of fidelity were not enough to save his marriage. Congress doesn't seem to me to be trying any harder than he did. Perhaps if they took down the Statue of Liberty before the French ask for it back I could take the hypocrisy better.
I know that the founding fathers did not apply their ideas universally. They excluded women and blacks most obviously. I would just like us to slowly improve and expand their ideas rather than reduce and withdraw from the base set of ideals.
Plus the attorneys, even if they didn't write the document(s), would still be in court challenging everything on it anyway. "NO, they meant this.. they meant that."
