Has feminism gone too far

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby dunadan » Tue Oct 03, 2000 6:32 am

Gargoyle:<BR><BR>No, my point about Kara Hultgren was that the Defense Department and the Navy rushed her through for the political purpose of getting a woman into a Tomcat. Two naval aviation instructors almost lost their jobs because they wouldn't pass her. She wasn't put into that cockpit because she was a good pilot. She was put in a cockpit of an F-14 IN SPITE of the fact that she was a bad pilot. She was put in that position because of feminist dogma and feminist politicians. The name of this thread is "Has Feminism Gone Too Far?" In this case if no other, it sure did.<BR><BR>You don't make sense. On the one hand you freely admit that physical standards have been lowered. This can only result in physically weaker people (male and female) getting put in position requiring physical effort. On the other hand, you claim that these women can do the same things as men despite admittedly less strength. Don't wash, bub. Or perhaps you'd like to tell us why those who are engaged in physical tasks shouldn't have to meet physical standards?<BR><BR>No, no one would get in trouble for not making the girls do their share. You risk losing your career. The "Word" goes out that women in the military is a big success - no one will be allowed to rock the boat. As a matter of fact, if you expect the same effort out of the women as you do the men, your goose is cooked. Your "insensitive." You people have no idea what actaully goes on. No clue.
User avatar
dunadan
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 8:44 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Tue Oct 03, 2000 6:58 am

I agree with Dunadan on what I know of that Carrier incident. Just the look and hard-swallowing of the Navy officials who had to answer questions on that---looked like they were stuck holding large sacks of poop.<BR><BR>Tempest, I am sorry to have grouped you in. Like all of us, we don't really know each other enough from these boards to judge a whole person. I'm sorry. I have run into a lot of problems with this on the boards because I don't take the time (when writing at 4 or 5 people) to single them all out and specify who to pay attention and who this doesn't apply to. SOOO, everybody, if the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't then I didn't mean you.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby asaris » Tue Oct 03, 2000 7:13 am

Dan -- I would love to argue the Bible's validity to you, but since I've done so already on another thread, I'm not going to do it here. If you're really interested, check out "Why don't you belive in the Bible?". All your questions will be answered <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>.
User avatar
asaris
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 11:07 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Tue Oct 03, 2000 7:25 am

Well, Tempest. as regards the History/Archeology/Winners write the History question.... Sure. I guess we can always call into account the integrity of a writer or scientist or reporter. Just like it was the only way for OJ to weasel out of insurmountable evidence against him....claim the "authorities" were biased and prejudiced against him. That's how Global Warming opposition fights the growing stats and evidence that we are causing big problems, real-fast. They say that the whole scientific community is more biased than THEIR OWN scientists. Now how twisted is that? Yet it works to some degree, and everyone who wishes the world was OK and that their lives won't be impacted says "yah, yah, those other scientists are crooked and trying to scare us" and they go back to their Monday Night Football.<BR>And every minority group who would like to rewrite history in their own image. Sure there is white male slant to our History. But every group who wants to revise it BY DEFINITION will do the same or worse. They will write with EMPHASIS on their own behalf and by default write a slanted history, and by degrees worse depending on how much vendetta/revenge/for the cause factors are added. See, just by claiming that it is wrong and needs rewriting displays their bias and taints the whole process. <BR><BR>Science says that you cannot study a thing without altering it. By casting light into the dark, you change that which you seek by illuminating it. And it is the rare experiment that finds something other than what the scientist was looking for. We taint our research purity from the very moment we define our goal, because purity and truth should be open to ALL Possibilities, right? Not just the ones we are looking for..<BR><BR>So saying that science is imperfect, therefore all of science is faulty and suspect, and lets believe the creationists.......that's premature, unfair and it smacks of corporate scientists and OJ Lawyers who wish to cast aspersions at honest efforts, with the additional hypocrisy of impure motives of their own.<BR><BR>I find it funny how the church denounces science when it suits it;s purposes, then when they think they've found a scientific artifact that supports their story, science is OK again.<BR><BR>So Tempest, I believe most of accepted science and theories---98\% of it---was done in VERY good faith and with all intent of reporting objectively what they found. The reason it was accepted is that others tried to refute it and failed, or others proved the same thing with tests of their own. I cannot say the same for creation science and other pseudo-sciences, nor especially history revisionists with axes to grind. Again, I am NOT saying no facts throughout history have been distorted or suppressed. But errors have been corrected, through time, wherever they have been found.
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Tue Oct 03, 2000 7:32 am

In other words , I go along with Plunge. I let Plunge do my talking for me. Plunge has authority to speak on my behalf in most matters. In fact, direct your questions for me to Plunge, unless they are particlularly dicey. Or, give me time to confer with Plunge on the Particlularly dicey ones, and then Plunge can explain how I feel.
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby Gargoyle » Tue Oct 03, 2000 7:46 am

Dunadan,<BR><BR>Yep, I certainly agree with you that it is a case of feminism gone wrong, with that pilot being given those kinds of loopholes. The point I'm arguing with is the use of ONE specific example to then make the claim that all women have no place in a fighter is a ludicrous claim. This is an individual example. Yes, this one did stem with the unfortunate misconception that just because women are able, then one was needed in that role immediately to appease the feminist lobby. I can visualize a military board meeting something like "General, Senator Buffy from California is asking again why we still don't have a female pilot, and she carries a lot of voters and the administration is worried." and the pressure rolls downhill and a "symbol of new feminism" gets into the pilot seat before her time. This is the disgrace. To me, this shows a weakness in the military administration as a whole, but has entirely nothing to do with whether or not a woman can fly an airplane. I hope you see the difference. If shortcuts like this (and "getting to run around the barbwire", "not have to do work", "the boys in my platoon will take care of her") are the norm, then this casts a pathetic shame on our armed forces, but not on the women. Again, I agree with you that there are _specific_ roles in the military that depend upon physical strength to perform, and women as a result probably wouldn't qualify. But your contention that the modern army requires this of everyone is one that I dispute (Believe me, I've met far too many overweight out-of-shape techs and desk jockeys in the military that the average in-shape women could outperform in any physical tasks.)<BR><BR>I completely agree with your (and Dan's) outrage with feminism trampling roughshod over everything, and women being coddled and given things that they should have to EARN on their own merits. Where I disagree with you is your extension of this, in that just because men can physically lift more, then women are weaker, dumber, and generally less capable in all things. Evidence. I need evidence before I would believe such an extraordinary claim (and please don't mention those SAT statistics again <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>)
User avatar
Gargoyle
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 1:00 am
Top

Postby Dan Mihm » Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:58 am

Kudos to Gargoyle. I wish for people here to know what I truly think.<BR>I am in agreement with Gargoyle that no examples of a woman's failure can be made to speak for all women. Certainly, we have never moved far from some characterizations as far as men are concerned---because some show a violent or abusive side, all men are capable at any time of sodomizing old granny's for purse-change. Of course all men aren't like that and of course, if this woman pilot had a bad landing doesn't mean women can't do it. In fact, she gets stigmatized a lot when it wasn't her fault really. She was put in a bad position.<BR><BR>I wish for all of us to enjoy what the world has to offer in equal measures. I truly do. And I don't find any benefit in ranting against women, except I rant against the popular culture of today which villifies men and deifies women, but I don't think by running down either sex we get anywhere.
User avatar
Dan Mihm
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 980
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 8:57 am
Top

Postby plunge » Tue Oct 03, 2000 9:14 am

History is not like science, this is true. It can never be like science, because it does, in part, deal with people's motivations and even studies intanglible things like human opinion. And there HAVE been lots of deficiencies in the study of history, though not all are due to rich scholars (being rich doesn't always make one uninterested in the poor- many social historians were wealthy and concerned with the history of poverty). But by and large these biases are refutable-by folllowing the very sorts of standards for evidence that the study of history demands. And like the scientific community, the history comminty is a huge and VERY contentious global cummunity that is constantly attacking everyone's work- putting it through the ringer, testing it by fire. <BR>But in Biblical study, NOTHING is considered refutable. It's a _given_ before even starting that the sole purpose of studying at all is to bolster the Bible's veracity. Are there things that might refute the Bible's account? It doesn't matter, because this possibility isn't even really considered, and so no one looks.<BR>People find evidence of a flood, and assume that this proves that everything the Bible said in speicifc about the Noah story was all true. No historian would ever stoop to that.
User avatar
plunge
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2000 4:23 pm
Top

Previous

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests