What? I certainly hope you are not a native English speaker. 1) How are men psychologically better? 2) Yes, women have two XX chromosomes, I am glad someone paid attention in seventh grade biology. 3) To be finished with what?
I am quite certainly a native English speaker the time was getting late so I got lazy, but I must applaud you or whoever is the moderator because you guys are really on the ball.
As I was saying, the common difference between Men and Women is that in one of the pairs of chromosomes is XY instead of XX. This means that women when conceived and created with redundant capabilities whereas men are created with X and Y meaning a greater width but the same depth. Therefore women should have less rights based on the fact of their redundancy genetically.
PS How would I have the red banner removed? Do I need to fix the offending post?
Therefore women should have less rights based on the fact of their redundancy genetically.
Hwaaah? Hey, actually, you should read how wussy the Y chromosome is from a biological prospective before you try to argue like that. You're all like "Yeah, my genetic superiority...oh, wait...my Y chromosome...it be shrinking"
How do people feel about a woman's right to serve in combat? Women can possibly see action as a combat medics, combat MP, pilots etc,,, but they can't be enlisted into a combat arms unit: infantry, tanks, artillery, special forces etc,,, Also, how do people feel about the two different standards for the APFT?
How do people feel about a woman's right to serve in combat? Women can possibly see action as a combat medics, combat MP, pilots etc,,, but they can't be enlisted into a combat arms unit: infantry, tanks, artillery, special forces etc,,, Also, how do people feel about the two different standards for theAPFT?
How do people feel about a woman's right to serve in combat? Women can possibly see action as a combat medics, combat MP, pilots etc,,, but they can't be enlisted into a combat arms unit: infantry, tanks, artillery, special forces etc,,, Also, how do people feel about the two different standards for theAPFT?
There should be one set of rules for both genders. If you can pass the test, you can serve.
I am quite certainly a native English speaker the time was getting late so I got lazy, but I must applaud you or whoever is the moderator because you guys are really on the ball.
As I was saying, the common difference between Men and Women is that in one of the pairs of chromosomes is XY instead of XX. This means that women when conceived and created with redundant capabilities whereas men are created with X and Y meaning a greater width but the same depth. Therefore women should have less rights based on the fact of their redundancy genetically.
PS How would I have the red banner removed? Do I need to fix the offending post?
This has to be a troll. Nobody can be this stupid.
However, I feel compelled to expound a bit on the nature of the sex chromosomes.
From a biological standpoint, the X chromosomes are the only useful ones. They contain a bunch of what are generally referred to as "housekeeping" genes; "housekeeping" genes usually involve fundamental biological functions, so any mutations in those genes tend to be lethal.
The Y chromosome, for starters, is shrinking, because most of it is useless. There's a lot of evidence that says it was once part of the X chromosome, but it was recombined out at some point. The only apparent function of the Y chromosome is sex determination; the major gene is SDY, which produces the testes determining factor (TDF), which is responsible for differentiating a developing embryo into a male. All embryos are genetically female to begin with; TDF kicks in at some point during development, and that's when the sex organs begin to differentiate.
So, other than actually turning males into males, the Y chromosome does jack all. The redundancy of having two X chromosomes is actually BENEFICIAL to females. Normally, one the X chromosomes is inactivated, forming what's called a Barr body. Usually, the inactivation is random, and if the two different chromosomes have different alleles of the same genes, this results in differential expression of certain genes. That's the cause, by the way, of the calico coloring pattern.
If a female has a sex-linked disorder, but only one chromosome is affected, the other can act as a backup, restoring some functionality. Basically, females have backup protection against some pretty nasty mutations.
All embryos are genetically female to begin with; TDF kicks in at some point during development, and that's when the sex organs begin to differentiate.
I am quite certainly a native English speaker the time was getting late so I got lazy, but I must applaud you or whoever is the moderator because you guys are really on the ball.
WOW! You can construct sentences!! Please do so more frequently.
As I was saying, the common difference between Men and Women is that in one of the pairs of chromosomes is XY instead of XX. This means that women when conceived and created with redundant capabilities whereas men are created with X and Y meaning a greater width but the same depth. Therefore women should have less rights based on the fact of their redundancy genetically.
Please explain and cite what capabilities the X and Y chromosomes allow a person and what modern social, educational, economic, and legal ramifications these varied capabilities carry. Moreover, please discuss the fact that the DNA within these chromosome pairs (XX or XY) is drastically different in each human being, which combination of codes is "better" and how we can implement a stratified social structure based solely on chromosomes, DNA, and the capabilities that they carry - as this is obviously the only determination of worth within society based on your statement.
PS How would I have the red banner removed? Do I need to fix the offending post?
WOW! You can construct sentences!! Please do so more frequently.
All embryos are genetically female to begin with; TDF kicks in at some point during development, and that's when the sex organs begin to differentiate.
Isn't this why males have nipples?
Yup.
It's also why the penis is actually just an enlarged clitoris.
How do people feel about a woman's right to serve in combat? Women can possibly see action as a combat medics, combat MP, pilots etc,,, but they can't be enlisted into a combat arms unit: infantry, tanks, artillery, special forces etc,,, Also, how do people feel about the two different standards for theAPFT?
The only standard should be physical or mental capability. If a woman is capable, there should be no justifiable reason to prevent her from joining combat in any capacity. I have an Aunt who has actually made history by reaching Admiral rank with special distinction. Aside from the obvious problem of close quarters and hormones, the only other major problem with females in combat is that some males get uppity when they are placed in ranks below females.
My Aunt told me a story once of a part racial tension/part sexism situation in the early 1980s where a minority male decided that no white woman was going to tell him what to do. He proceeded to sneak into her room in the officers quarters with a pipe. Had my Aunt actually been asleep, she would have been dead. However, she moved at the last moment, and only took minor damage to her nose. She chased after him, blood streaming down her face, until some of the other officers stopped her. If she had chosen to press charges, she would never have been promoted to the rank that she has earned. The crew handled the wayward soldier.
Since this time, she has instituted changes and a mentoring program in her service to keep other women who serve from facing that. There have been a significant number of females in trying to pave the way, but it still is very much a "boy's club".
Mrs.MacRoss, Apreche, and HungryJoe, I question your incentive to be so antagonistic. I believe that it's because of my attempt at playing the devil's advocate and arguing for a side I do not believe in, so as to keep a multi-faceted debate. One sided arguments are never very fun. They usually turn into a mob making statements following them with a chorused 'Yeah!' which is what you three have become.
Especially you, HungryJoe, I think you have fallen victim of losing individual thought by the fact that you followed Apreche almost instantaneously, by what I can gather, and that you offered no different or novel remark.
Apreche, your sharp words are fine, I guess, since this category was created for flamers.
Mrs. MacRoss, I tried to use the Greek Method of reasoning because it is much quicker and I was short on time. I believe your post wasn't affected quite as much from mob mentality because you decided to add to the debate by questioning me, but you still decided to use satire. Your satire was false anyways. In the beginning, I now see after re-reading what I posted, my first sentence was missing a piece which you seem to have missed. I wrote:
'I am quite certainly a native English speaker the time was getting late so I got lazy, but I must applaud you or whoever is the moderator because you guys are really on the ball.'
When I should have written:
'I am quite certainly a native English speaker. When I wrote the offending post the time was getting late so I got lazy..."
Jeremwah, I don't feel like critiquing you because you could honestly be having trouble reading and comprehending what I write, but I don't mean to say that I am writing anything terribly complex however.
TheWhaleShack, as I explained I am not a troll, I am not ' deliberately post[ing anything] false or controversial to gain attention for the sake of gaining attention' (compliments of Google). I posted so as to keep the debate from becoming one sided, though with this topic it is near impossible.
TheWhaleShack, as I explained I am not a troll, I am not ' deliberately post[ing anything] false or controversial to gain attention for the sake of gaining attention' (compliments of Google). I posted so as to keep the debate from becoming one sided, though with this topic it is near impossible.
You can play devil's advocate all you want, but if you do it on a topic like this, you're going to get crushed. Solidly.
Having multiple people echo the same sentiment is not always a bad thing, and being contrary or controversial solely for the sake of argument is a profoundly irritating quality in a poster.
If you'd like to offer up some serious discussion about women's rights, I'd love to hear it. Posting something like this:
As I was saying, the common difference between Men and Women is that in one of the pairs of chromosomes is XY instead of XX. This means that women when conceived and created with redundant capabilities whereas men are created with X and Y meaning a greater width but the same depth. Therefore women should have less rights based on the fact of their redundancy genetically.
is beyond the scope of devil's advocate. Reread it, and I think you can see how that's an obvious line for a troll to take. Unless you are incredibly misinformed, such a statement is a deliberate attempt to provoke a reaction. That is not making a multi-faceted argument; it's a ridiculous statement that is easily crushed with any sort of actual knowledge of the subject at hand.
This topic, if you didn't get it, was a sarcastic joke. It started off as a silly thread, because no rational person in this day and age could actually say something like "women deserve fewer rights than men" and honestly expect it to be taken seriously. We could have a discussion about the impact of having both parents working on child rearing, and perhaps tie it back to a call for a stay-at-home child rearer, a role historically taken by women, if you'd like. That might spark some interesting discussion. Or perhaps you could comment on the women in the military issue. Go nuts. Just don't be needlessly contrary; if you can make a reasonable devil's advocate argument, do so, but don't do so for the sake of trying to generate dissent. You'll just end up making the argument even more one-sided.
How do people feel about a woman's right to serve in combat? Women can possibly see action as a combat medics, combat MP, pilots etc,,, but they can't be enlisted into a combat arms unit: infantry, tanks, artillery, special forces etc,,, Also, how do people feel about the two different standards for theAPFT?
The APFT thing is a little on the tricky side. I'm in favor of making it one standard, but that is sort of denying the fact that there are physiological differences in terms of what men and women can do as far as physical exertion is concerned. Essentially, the average male has more muscle mass than the average female, so the male has an advantage in anything that requires muscular strength. This isn't to say that women CAN'T do it; it's just that, on average, men simply have more muscle.
It's the same reason that there are separate categories for mens' and women's weightlifting. They're separated, in a sense, by the amount of work it takes to reach that physical point. Women tend to be the smaller sex, and women also tend to have a higher body fat percentage than men, so generally speaking, they have less muscle mass. A woman CAN get to be as strong as a man, but it takes more work.
This is a case where there is actual inequality in some circumstances. I'm not saying that woman CAN'T perform as well as a man on those tests; it's just that the average male is going to perform better than the average female. If she can perform up to the level of the males, then everything is hunky-dory; however, I'd say it's unrealistic to expect all women to be able to hit that standard.
As for not being allowed in infantry or what have you, that's a load of crap. A woman can fire a gun just as easily as a man.
This is a case where there is actual inequality in some circumstances. I'm not saying that woman CAN'T perform as well as a man on those tests; it's just that the average male is going to perform better than the average female. If she can perform up to the level of the males, then everything is hunky-dory; however, I'd say it's unrealistic to expect all women to be able to hit that standard.
As for not being allowed in infantry or what have you, that's a load of crap. A woman can fire a gun just as easily as a man.
I would think there is a lot more required than just firing a gun in a combat situation. Overall strength and a high level of cardiovascular fitness would be required in said situation. Being a solider is a job that is extremely dependent upon physical competence. I know if I were a soldier, I would not feel comfortable if I knew the person next to me had lower physical requirements to pass to be in a combat zone than me. If I were wounded, would I really want someone who didn't have to have the strength of other soldiers to be the person required to pull me out of an engagement?
Unlike your weightlifting analogy, there aren't two separate gender divisions in combat. There is just the person fighting beside you. Knowing that some people there didn't not have the same rigorous testing than others would be unnerving to me to say the least, regardless of gender. If I'm putting my life in the hand of my fellow soldiers, I want them all to be the best and that requires the same physical scrutiny of all the members.
This is a case where there is actual inequality in some circumstances. I'm not saying that woman CAN'T perform as well as a man on those tests; it's just that the average male is going to perform better than the average female. If she can perform up to the level of the males, then everything is hunky-dory; however, I'd say it's unrealistic to expect all women to be able to hit that standard.
As for not being allowed in infantry or what have you, that's a load of crap. A woman can fire a gun just as easily as a man.
I would think there is a lot more required than just firing a gun in a combat situation. Overall strength and a high level of cardiovascular fitness would be required in said situation. Being a solider is a job that is extremely dependent upon physical competence. I know if I were a soldier, I would not feel comfortable if I knew the person next to me had lower physical requirements to pass to be in a combat zone than me. If I were wounded, would I really want someone who didn't have to have the strength of other soldiers to be the person required to pull me out of an engagement if I were wounded?
Unlike your weightlifting analogy, there aren't two separate gender divisions in combat. There is just the person fighting beside you. Knowing that some people there didn't not have the same rigorous testing than others would be unnerving to me to say the least, regardless of gender. If I'm putting my life in the hand of my fellow soldiers, I want them all to be the best and that requires the same physical scrutiny of all the members.
Oh, I completely agree. The reason the separate divisions exist is because it's not actually reasonable to expect the same physical performance from both genders. Women may not be able to actually complete the push-up requirement.
The consequence of applying the same standard across the board is that you'll probably see fewer women in the military, simply because a lot won't be able to fulfill the physical requirement. I'd be OK with that, personally, but if we're looking to encourage women to join the military, you sort of have to account for the physical differences between the sexes.
I'd be OK with that, personally, but if we're looking to encourage women to join the military, you sort of have to account for the physical differences between the sexes.
Just a question, but is it necessary we have an approximate 50/50 balance? What is so important of maintaining equality? Denying that there are innate differences between people is not a step forward. It's the same argument I have against Affirmative Action. Sure, the law means well, but isn't it just racism because they are saying blacks can't make it on their own? Making separate rules for women only reinforces the idea that they are inferior.
You forgot to mention place. There are still plenty of places where men enjoy a number of rights that women do not.
I accept your middle-ground and the fact that my original statement wasn't truly a decent or even considerable defense for the anti-women's rights side. The problem is that it's always fun to try to be a sexist or just in general a bigoted person. Your suggested arguments, however, aren't as fun as the the either yes or no debate, that would lack any sort of compromise.
I'd be OK with that, personally, but if we're looking to encourage women to join the military, you sort of have to account for the physical differences between the sexes.
Just a question, but is it necessary we have an approximate 50/50 balance? What is so important of maintaining equality? Denying that there are innate differences between people is not a step forward. It's the same argument I have against Affirmative Action. Sure, the law means well, but isn't it just racism because they are saying blacks can't make it on their own? Making separate rules for women only reinforces the idea that they are inferior.
By no means is it necessary that we have a 50/50 balance. I rather have some of the same problems with Affirmative Action. Establish equality by granting special privileges? How does that make sense?
As I said, the only issue with applying one standard of physical fitness is that it's going to be unfair to quite a lot of women. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but there are people who do.
Affirmative Action is often a necessary evil. It is obvious that in an ideal society, we would not have Affirmative Action of any kind, because it is discriminatory.
The justification for it is that there is discrimination within society, so it should be cancelled out with equal and opposite discrimination. One of the biggest problems is that it's very difficult to quantify and detect discrimination though. Another big issue is that this additional discrimination can quite possibly reduce the decay rate of the kind of discrimination it is attempting to negate.
With regards to the specific issue of women in military service, I would agree that a standard based solely on ability to do the job - the same one for men and women - is the only way to go, really.
I'm still thinking about this issue, and I was trying to come up with some kind of interesting post, but I haven't gotten there yet :S
Jim: I am going to do something about the number of women in the Civil Service. Sir Humphrey: Surely there aren't all that many.
The problem is that it's always fun to try to be a sexist or just in general a bigoted person. Your suggested arguments, however, aren't as fun as the the either yes or no debate, that would lack any sort of compromise.
I disagree completely. A good, two-sided argument is always far, far more enjoyable than one where one side is utterly hopeless.
Comments
women have two XX chromosomes the...
to be finished
Edit: I added in the 'be' I'm pretty embarrassed that I forgot to put that in and finished the tangent farther down
Seriously man, you have a tendency to miss letters or words, it's really confusing.
1) How are men psychologically better?
2) Yes, women have two XX chromosomes, I am glad someone paid attention in seventh grade biology.
3) To be finished with what?
As I was saying, the common difference between Men and Women is that in one of the pairs of chromosomes is XY instead of XX. This means that women when conceived and created with redundant capabilities whereas men are created with X and Y meaning a greater width but the same depth. Therefore women should have less rights based on the fact of their redundancy genetically.
PS How would I have the red banner removed? Do I need to fix the offending post?
Seriously, do you have some sort of problem that we should know about? Are you autistic? Do you have a debilitating brain aneurysm? Are you a redneck?
Are you that flammingeek guy?
I would go ahead and argue with Magnum_Opus, but I seem to be having difficulty reading what he's trying to say.
However, I feel compelled to expound a bit on the nature of the sex chromosomes.
From a biological standpoint, the X chromosomes are the only useful ones. They contain a bunch of what are generally referred to as "housekeeping" genes; "housekeeping" genes usually involve fundamental biological functions, so any mutations in those genes tend to be lethal.
The Y chromosome, for starters, is shrinking, because most of it is useless. There's a lot of evidence that says it was once part of the X chromosome, but it was recombined out at some point. The only apparent function of the Y chromosome is sex determination; the major gene is SDY, which produces the testes determining factor (TDF), which is responsible for differentiating a developing embryo into a male. All embryos are genetically female to begin with; TDF kicks in at some point during development, and that's when the sex organs begin to differentiate.
So, other than actually turning males into males, the Y chromosome does jack all. The redundancy of having two X chromosomes is actually BENEFICIAL to females. Normally, one the X chromosomes is inactivated, forming what's called a Barr body. Usually, the inactivation is random, and if the two different chromosomes have different alleles of the same genes, this results in differential expression of certain genes. That's the cause, by the way, of the calico coloring pattern.
If a female has a sex-linked disorder, but only one chromosome is affected, the other can act as a backup, restoring some functionality. Basically, females have backup protection against some pretty nasty mutations.
It's also why the penis is actually just an enlarged clitoris.
My Aunt told me a story once of a part racial tension/part sexism situation in the early 1980s where a minority male decided that no white woman was going to tell him what to do. He proceeded to sneak into her room in the officers quarters with a pipe. Had my Aunt actually been asleep, she would have been dead. However, she moved at the last moment, and only took minor damage to her nose. She chased after him, blood streaming down her face, until some of the other officers stopped her. If she had chosen to press charges, she would never have been promoted to the rank that she has earned. The crew handled the wayward soldier.
Since this time, she has instituted changes and a mentoring program in her service to keep other women who serve from facing that. There have been a significant number of females in trying to pave the way, but it still is very much a "boy's club".
Especially you, HungryJoe, I think you have fallen victim of losing individual thought by the fact that you followed Apreche almost instantaneously, by what I can gather, and that you offered no different or novel remark.
Apreche, your sharp words are fine, I guess, since this category was created for flamers.
Mrs. MacRoss, I tried to use the Greek Method of reasoning because it is much quicker and I was short on time. I believe your post wasn't affected quite as much from mob mentality because you decided to add to the debate by questioning me, but you still decided to use satire. Your satire was false anyways. In the beginning, I now see after re-reading what I posted, my first sentence was missing a piece which you seem to have missed. I wrote:
'I am quite certainly a native English speaker the time was getting late so I got lazy, but I must applaud you or whoever is the moderator because you guys are really on the ball.'
When I should have written:
'I am quite certainly a native English speaker. When I wrote the offending post the time was getting late so I got lazy..."
Jeremwah, I don't feel like critiquing you because you could honestly be having trouble reading and comprehending what I write, but I don't mean to say that I am writing anything terribly complex however.
TheWhaleShack, as I explained I am not a troll, I am not ' deliberately post[ing anything] false or controversial to gain attention for the sake of gaining attention' (compliments of Google). I posted so as to keep the debate from becoming one sided, though with this topic it is near impossible.
Having multiple people echo the same sentiment is not always a bad thing, and being contrary or controversial solely for the sake of argument is a profoundly irritating quality in a poster.
If you'd like to offer up some serious discussion about women's rights, I'd love to hear it. Posting something like this: is beyond the scope of devil's advocate. Reread it, and I think you can see how that's an obvious line for a troll to take. Unless you are incredibly misinformed, such a statement is a deliberate attempt to provoke a reaction. That is not making a multi-faceted argument; it's a ridiculous statement that is easily crushed with any sort of actual knowledge of the subject at hand.
This topic, if you didn't get it, was a sarcastic joke. It started off as a silly thread, because no rational person in this day and age could actually say something like "women deserve fewer rights than men" and honestly expect it to be taken seriously. We could have a discussion about the impact of having both parents working on child rearing, and perhaps tie it back to a call for a stay-at-home child rearer, a role historically taken by women, if you'd like. That might spark some interesting discussion. Or perhaps you could comment on the women in the military issue. Go nuts. Just don't be needlessly contrary; if you can make a reasonable devil's advocate argument, do so, but don't do so for the sake of trying to generate dissent. You'll just end up making the argument even more one-sided.
It's the same reason that there are separate categories for mens' and women's weightlifting. They're separated, in a sense, by the amount of work it takes to reach that physical point. Women tend to be the smaller sex, and women also tend to have a higher body fat percentage than men, so generally speaking, they have less muscle mass. A woman CAN get to be as strong as a man, but it takes more work.
This is a case where there is actual inequality in some circumstances. I'm not saying that woman CAN'T perform as well as a man on those tests; it's just that the average male is going to perform better than the average female. If she can perform up to the level of the males, then everything is hunky-dory; however, I'd say it's unrealistic to expect all women to be able to hit that standard.
As for not being allowed in infantry or what have you, that's a load of crap. A woman can fire a gun just as easily as a man.
Unlike your weightlifting analogy, there aren't two separate gender divisions in combat. There is just the person fighting beside you. Knowing that some people there didn't not have the same rigorous testing than others would be unnerving to me to say the least, regardless of gender. If I'm putting my life in the hand of my fellow soldiers, I want them all to be the best and that requires the same physical scrutiny of all the members.
The consequence of applying the same standard across the board is that you'll probably see fewer women in the military, simply because a lot won't be able to fulfill the physical requirement. I'd be OK with that, personally, but if we're looking to encourage women to join the military, you sort of have to account for the physical differences between the sexes.
I accept your middle-ground and the fact that my original statement wasn't truly a decent or even considerable defense for the anti-women's rights side. The problem is that it's always fun to try to be a sexist or just in general a bigoted person. Your suggested arguments, however, aren't as fun as the the either yes or no debate, that would lack any sort of compromise.
As I said, the only issue with applying one standard of physical fitness is that it's going to be unfair to quite a lot of women. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but there are people who do.
It is obvious that in an ideal society, we would not have Affirmative Action of any kind, because it is discriminatory.
The justification for it is that there is discrimination within society, so it should be cancelled out with equal and opposite discrimination. One of the biggest problems is that it's very difficult to quantify and detect discrimination though. Another big issue is that this additional discrimination can quite possibly reduce the decay rate of the kind of discrimination it is attempting to negate.
With regards to the specific issue of women in military service, I would agree that a standard based solely on ability to do the job - the same one for men and women - is the only way to go, really.
I'm still thinking about this issue, and I was trying to come up with some kind of interesting post, but I haven't gotten there yet :S
Incidentally, why not discuss something a lot more fun. I disagree completely. A good, two-sided argument is always far, far more enjoyable than one where one side is utterly hopeless.