|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
posted February 13, 2019 01:20 AM |
|
Edited by Minion at 01:34, 13 Feb 2019.
|
|
So a single guy likes Trump and he is black. STOP THE PRESSES. Now I believe. The 99% of blacks are wrong because I saw a single guy who thinks differently.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 01:40 AM |
|
|
Minion said:
So a single guy likes Trump and he is black. STOP THE PRESSES. Now I believe. The 99% of blacks are wrong because I saw a single guy who thinks differently.
WE CONVERTED ANOTHER ONE, GUYS! USA! USA! USA! 
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 02:15 AM |
|
|
I don't see what Trump has to do with the thing we discussed lately.
CNN analyst accuses a black man of white privilege.
"My team gave me the wrong info"
lol
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 08:10 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
JollyJoker said:
You don't think women and colored people haven't been oppressed in the past?
I didn't say that, I said is far from being crystal clear, which is the only situation when you can call white man evil, as you do. For exemple, I could personally be offended by this racist bullsnow you push there like "YOU (men, white) have had enough" because neither I or any of my ancestors oppressed any colored people and I am white. I know also about several hundred of millions of white people farther at east - Russians for example, what about them, aren't they white? Polish, Hungarians, Czechs, Bulgarians, and so on? Did they oppress "colored people"?
Did colored men also practice the slavery or not? How about slavery now, who is still practicing it, whites or "colored people"? What about the status of women, NOW, in most "colored" countries?
Does evil have a specific color of skin?
You should listen, maybe, to other sources than those hammering the same superficial tantrum, without going deeper. This J. Peterson debate offers other perspectives (from 6th min about women oppression but all is worth listening to, in my opinion).
Took some time fo me to answer this, since I had to watch (part of) this and a couple of other things.
I have to say that I cannot understand the hype around Peterson. He's obviously intelligent - which doesn't keep him from saying that society hasn't been built on patriarchical dominance but COMPETENCE. That's a really ridiculous thing to say, mainly because it can be debunked so easily. "Competence" is based on EDUCATION, and that is even true for work or "professions" who need strength; an average trained/educated woman is better in everything than an untrained/uneducated man. There is no disputing that. From here on it's all downhill for that point, because what is true physically is certainly not wrong for mental abilities and professions, and the naked truth is that women didn't get the chance. Women were not supposed to work, but instead do the housekeeping.
Now, the thing is, that this COULD HAVE BEEN based on "cooperation" - job-sharing in cordial agreement, so-to-speak -, but in this case there should have been equal rights for anyone, which hasn't been the case. At all.
So basically this is nonsense. Yes, in earlier times men HAD more competence in everything not "household", eventually, but the reason for that was that there simply were no equal opportunities - and that is leaving out the lower classes where "competence" is certainly the wrong word to use.
And then the interview itself. Peterson doesn't let the interviewer finish her sentences, he's interrupting her. I hate that.
Interesting is, that Peterson, as an anti-PC guy, has filed a lawsuit, because three university staff members are supposed to have defamed him by negative comments BEHIND CLOSED DOORS (!). As I said in another post, typically the anti-PC guys are the first to protest as soon as something is said about them they don't like (there are other examples here), but for Peterson, who has "free speech" on his agenda (and misguided in parts as well), that comes as more surprise. The lawsuit itself, considering that this is supposed to have happened behind closed door, looks more like he has now - maybe because of his success - illusions of grandeur.
"Why do you even want to look at history in this way?" This question is pretty damning, I think.
Anyway, for someone who says that things have been discussed too shallow in the last 50 years, he's not doing a good job to change that.
With the "colored" thing, well. Think about French Revolution. When that eventually happened and you were a nobleman, would it have helped you if you had been a nobleman that had treated his peasants and servants well? I don't think so; they would still have put you to the guillotine; guilty by association.
Anyway, "white" means basically "the Christian people who colonized and missionized the Americas, Africa and parts of Asia. However, "colored" doesn't mean just "black". What about gypsies? Russia hasn't been that big a country, and in Russia there have been a lot of different peoples who have been oppressed. As I said, I know that in the ex GDR the Vietnamese (people from another people's republic and as such communist com rades) who came into the country have been racially abused in much the same way the Western Germans have been abusing Turks.
You see, this is no personal thing and for most it's not even a CONSCIOUS thing, but everyone comes from a certain background and certain behavior pattern are saved in the childhood and later copied, without think much of it, which is why it takes time for a society to really change.
As with everything - and as psychologist Peterson would know that - the most important thing is to accept the truth and concede it. Because only then things can be repaired.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 09:59 AM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 10:15, 13 Feb 2019.
|
JollyJoker said:
"Competence" is based on EDUCATION, and that is even true for work or "professions" who need strength; an average trained/educated woman is better in everything than an untrained/uneducated man.
Well, do you mean Education as a system? Or actual meaningful education? You know, the one that actually helps you find a job in life? And I'm not talking basics like counting numbers or reading. I do believe you have the same problem in yours as we have in our country where people after Universities can't find a job in their specialization? Those people are theoretically smart, yet there are no jobs for a huge group of people who for instance finished Sociology or Philology, so they end up doing manual labor like warehouse maintenance or clerks. Well you can always retrain but education does not equal job the same as education does not cover actual experience. Plus there are many cases of jobs were people with no education earn more then educated ones ex. construction workers vs teachers. A worker who has a problem with reading but has years of experience in building houses (which comes naturally as long as he works) will be sought after more then a Sociologist. That's how it is in my country at least.
My point: education does help as it might raise your chances, but won't auto-give you job.
What is an actual issue for women, but is fortunately mitigated as mentality/contract rights change is the fact there is an option for maternal leave when you're a woman. Much has changed in my country and gone are the times when women were mistreated on this basis.
JollyJoker said:
Interesting is, that Peterson, as an anti-PC guy, has filed a lawsuit, because three university staff members are supposed to have defamed him by negative comments BEHIND CLOSED DOORS (!). As I said in another post, typically the anti-PC guys are the first to protest as soon as something is said about them they don't like (there are other examples here), but for Peterson, who has "free speech" on his agenda (and misguided in parts as well),
Wait what, isn't this what you people are actually doing? So it's now wrong to use your methods?
JollyJoker said:
You see, this is no personal thing and for most it's not even a CONSCIOUS thing, but everyone comes from a certain background and certain behavior pattern are saved in the childhood and later copied, without think much of it, which is why it takes time for a society to really change.
Yeah, but why is that "whites" should be the only ones aware of this fact? The problem that most people against PC (people of color included) are trying to convey is that it's not a one-way deal. Whites should be the ones to change, whites are the problem and whites are the privileged ones. SJW don't seem to appreciate what has been done, and what is being done. Even the guy who @marrkur mentioned says that when you try, even as a colored guy you actually have the same possibilities as a white guy. We face the same everyday problems, they are named differently though. But no, it's hell all around for only the "privileged" colored groups it seems.
Equality will never be achieved as there are class-based systems etc, this is some Utopian bs.
Minion said:
The 99% of blacks are wrong because I saw a single guy who thinks differently.
Now you're generalizing.
Salamandre said:
CNN analyst accuses a black man of white privilege.
And that's two.
Three more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8UqbASjQCo (heh another J. Peterson )
And a few more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQdvviT5ZTg (not on white privileges per se, but still socially aware how human beings should behave)
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 10:30 AM |
|
|
Even if you think that patriarchy and women oppression were the norm in the past - which is not crystal clear again, as conditions of life were tremendously harsher, life expectancy much shorter, so gender roles had to organize differently, also competence is partially based on biological aptitudes which you naturally skipped, - is ridiculous to still ask things to be "repaired" at such scale as yours, when it is obvious that some of the white and christian culture originated societies are today, if not flawless, the best and the most suitable for equality and progress. The less tyrannical, as it is mentioned. When you achieve to be at the top, after so many efforts and sacrifices, the crap talk about "evil white man" should be, if not removed by decency, at least nuanced. The best should be an example for others, not a constant target.
If you continue that way, you will have societies which will split ethnically, because no brain-safe man would accept to pay for the "faults" or far away ancestors, but be considered and judged on his own and present actions. If it was the way you think, then you, as German, would be required to shut up the most of time, after all, 85 million deaths in the ww2 looks impossible to repair in a life time, isn't it?
Anyway, is great that you took the time to watch that debate.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 10:38 AM |
|
|
I mean "education" as a way of teaching "skills".
I mean, if you are/were a boy and your father had you helping him with repair work, paint jobs and so on, this is kind of an education. If you are/were a girl and your mother had you helping her with washing, cooking, sewing cleaning, that's kind of an education as well.
In earlier times school cost the parents money. In Germany (I take this example because I know how it was in my country, but I expect that it was/is the same in other countries) in 1919 a law was passed that did away with paying money FOR BASIC SCHOOL (8 years).
All schools over and above that cost money until the end of the 1950s (!).
So putting your children into school would cost parents money. For girls mostly, it was expected that they would marry - so school and education wasn't deemed necessary; they could learn from their mother what they had to know as a good wife, while boys would have to feed a family later and therefore needed the education.
If you think about it, this system is a closed one, and it took EXCEPTIONS (that is, women of higher class and education (with money)) to break it up.
Meaning that "competence" is utter nonsense. The best you call it would be "pragmatic", but again, if there is a kind of cordial, pragmatic job-sharing, it makes no sense to point your finger to the part that can do the job with very little education and hold that against them (claiming them being incompetent and, for example, not educated enough to reasonably vote).
See that? I mean, say, you are the women, I'm the man. I say, well, you get the children; due to pregnancy you can't work the whole time anyway, so let me work for our living and you take care of the kids and the house.
So as much as job-sharing is concerned that's well and good. But me learning all kind of fancy stuff, while you keep doing the same stuff all over again creates a difference - and suddenly I say, hey, actually you are a bit dumb, aren't ya? You don't know much apart from housekeeping and children raising, so you aren't really fit to be your own (wo)man. Let me do the thinking for you...
That's where we come from.
Personally, the racial thing I've a lot less experience with. Sexes, yes, religion (and the bias coming with that), yes. For me "race" amounts to "ethnicity". Yes, things get better. But things do keep the same as well, the poorer people are, which is of course an environmental and educational thing. The higher-class the home is you are born into, the better the situation. The poorer it is, the worse it becomes. Social justice is, most of all, question of your social status and the size of your purse.
EDIT:
@ Sal
I don't think biological aptitudes need to be discussed, because even if there is/was a difference, that doesn't justify an inequality in rights - I described that, saying, there isn't anything wrong with cordial job-sharing, but if that job-sharing offers one part more opportunities you shouldn't hold that against the other part, which is what happened and which is the problem.
This, by the way, is comparable to the sexual situation. In sexual behavior it may well be - that there is a dominant and a submissive part, but that is obviously limited to that. If you look at cats, for example, the cats are absolutely submissive when in heat and will let more or less beg every tomcat to do it to her. When the three days are over and a tomcat comes, they get beaten up, though - and the tomcats understand and accept that, obviously.
In short, there are (mainly) two biologically very different kinds of humans, but different is just that. One isn't better or worse than the other or shouldn't have more or less rights. Has been that way though.
One thought I had when listening to Peterson I forgot to mention - he argues like the people who are proponents of the "benign king". Yup, Prussia did well under Fredrick the Great - but still, there is no reason that women should be men's subjects, even if they WERE benign.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 11:16 AM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 11:59, 13 Feb 2019.
|
JollyJoker said:
That's where we come from.
So you are relating to the fact that women's work is not appreciated and this is ingrained into us for like 100 years or so? There are hundreds of things women can do better then man and that's why we rely on them on it as women rely on men for doing some stuff. And while not a case of "being better at something", I have women programmers in my company and fellow workers rely on them to help with some cases, because well, they're good and educated and experienced? Did anyone ever questioned their abilities based on their gender?
A different thing. You say men environments are toxic for women. You know what my friends wife said to me based on her experience as a medical sales representative? And a successful one I might add (I know their payroll, they're pretty open about it). She earns a lot more then his husband yet it doesn't make him sour  . She said: "Stay clear of women-dominant job environments. Those will eat you alive, as women are prone to hold grudges, especially between each other, and it affects everyone, men included. My workplace is toxic because of this". Not my words, hers. And she said it after her husband mentioned the atmosphere in his job got worse after recruiting a few more women, as the ones working there before didn't find a common ground with them. The same can happen to men-oriented env. ofc, just saying. Why am I saying this? Sometimes you need to see things from different angles.
JollyJoker said:
Personally, the racial thing I've a lot less experience with. Sexes, yes, religion (and the bias coming with that), yes. For me "race" amounts to "ethnicity". Yes, things get better. But things do keep the same as well, the poorer people are, which is of course an environmental and educational thing. The higher-class the home is you are born into, the better the situation. The poorer it is, the worse it becomes. Social justice is, most of all, question of your social status and the size of your purse.
Does it stop (not hinder, that's a bit different) those people from climbing the social ladder? And what does this actually have to do with race? We don't have big minorities in Poland, yet we have poor and "bad" districts in cities. People there purposely go for welfare, they drink and they take drugs. Does race has to do with anything here? You know what they are called here? Loosers, not poor minorities.
You know what SJW problem is? They blame their failures on social injustice and other stuff. People who actually make money, work their asses off and do something meaningful don't have time for this.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 11:59 AM |
|
|
Am I speaking Chinese or something?
How often do I have to repeat that the problem hasn't been the job-sharing, but the conclusions drawn from it for the rights granted. I mean, you and me, we both live in a DEMOCRACY. But as the meaning of that word was different in ancient Greece, it was different 200 years ago, when the question was, who was ELIGIBLE to vote - and, naturally, of course, women were NOT.
And the irony here is, that, no, they were not sexistly oppressing women, they actually had a point: that women were not educated (or simply intelligent) enough to build a reasonable opinion. And when they later were allowed to vote - how many voted what their husband told them? How many still do?
THAT is the thing. a) let's share jobs; b) you don't need higher education for yours, so, since times are harsh, let's cut down on your higher education; c) Ah, well, some higher education is needed to understand the finer points of everything and to actually can be considered a grown-up, so d) actually you are more like a child and should do what you are told.
Now, sure, there are other factors, like religion and so on, but that's mainly it (in more modern times).
Quote:
Does it stop those people from climbing the social ladder? And what does this actually have to do with race? We don't have big minorities in Poland, yet we have poor and "bad" districts in cities. They purposely go for welfare, they drink and they take drugs. Does race has to do with anything here? You know what they are called here? Loosers, not poor minorities.
You know what SJW problem is? They blame their failures on social injustice and other stuff. People who actually make money, work their asses off and do something meaningful don't have time for this.
Again, I repeat something here. It's not about the grown-ups here, but instead about the CHILDREN, wo grow up in this kind of environment, and about what they learn from their parents and from assimilating their environment.
Each and every child growing up in a slum needs an extraordinary amount of plain LUCK to change status. They may not be ALLOWED to go to school regularly (yes, there are those "parents" or single parents); the school in their neighborhood is likely a bad one with a lot of violence; most teachers are likely crap, seeing themselves as loosers, having to teach in that environment. There is a lot of pressure, and chances are kids will early on do illegal things. I mean, most kids do illegal stuff at some point of their young life, but most without any necessity - just for kicks.
That's basically the problem. We KNOW, that this kind of environment breeds "issues", but we still like to pretend that it's none of our business and that everyone can make it, provided they really want - nonsense.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 01:47 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 14:08, 13 Feb 2019.
|
JollyJoker said:
THAT is the thing. a) let's share jobs; b) you don't need higher education for yours, so, since times are harsh, let's cut down on your higher education; c) Ah, well, some higher education is needed to understand the finer points of everything and to actually can be considered a grown-up, so d) actually you are more like a child and should do what you are told.
Ok but what does some customs from 50-100 years ago have to do with modern times, SJW's and women awareness? Last time I checked people can exactly pick the career they want? Plus many women start with their careers first, and then (if at all) have a child later on.
Quote:
Each and every child growing up in a slum needs an extraordinary amount of plain LUCK to change status. They may not be ALLOWED to go to school regularly (yes, there are those "parents" or single parents); the school in their neighborhood is likely a bad one with a lot of violence; most teachers are likely crap, seeing themselves as loosers, having to teach in that environment. There is a lot of pressure, and chances are kids will early on do illegal things. I mean, most kids do illegal stuff at some point of their young life, but most without any necessity - just for kicks.
Each and every child? And how do you know that? Statistics that say 100%? You went there? Some really have it hard and it's a wonder they were successful, that's true. But there are also a lot of people who try to help them, decent parents who want them to make big and support them. But isn't the character the most important here? I mean I know cases of "rich" and privileged people who went to the dumps, although they had everything handed to them on a golden plate (like this one prosecutors son who I've known that was into drugs and stole money from his friends, back in my university years). Or those decent hard working people who I know that come from poor and pathological families? My friends grandfather who came from a poor and large family of farmers, became a director of a hospital, which in Poland wasn't exactly a well paid job back then (communism), but at least he had respect because he helped many people. Besides how much of this is "white privilages" and not their parents telling them for example "Y'all don't even need to try, whites won't give you a chance" mentality? Or "the rich ones won't give you a chance"? Please give me a break... and no, not everyone will make it, but the same applies to you and me on whatever basis "making it" is defined (making a lot of money or having a simple decent life). You won't find values in a restitutionary family/environment which only wants to have privileges handed to them...
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 02:05 PM |
|
|
Minion said:
So a single guy likes Trump and he is black. STOP THE PRESSES. Now I believe. The 99% of blacks are wrong because I saw a single guy who thinks differently.
I doubt if I gave you 100 men and women it would challenge you to get out and do your own research.
I've told you and everyone here (and I've never been the only one) to stop listening to the global cabal's propagandized MSM mouthpiece. It is a corrupt & contrived-global-narrative. i.e. They will NOT (never) cover the yellow-vests in France! Why do you think that is? You need to discover the Truth yourself; we all need to and some point.
Here's a fine recent example of the <ahem> trustworthy MSM.
Native Elder Vs Covington MAGA Teen : What really happened !
Joyce
Here's another Black voice that can say what needs to be said without being called a "racist" and I am aware of several more but Truth is Truth and never a popularity contest.
Kevin
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 02:28 PM |
|
|
blob2 said:
Last time I checked people can exactly pick the career they want?
Well, then check again. Last time I checked, wiki said Quote:
Only a few countries allow women to serve on an equal basis [in the military]. They include Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
So can Polish women pick a career in the military? And that's one example only.
Quote:
Each and every child growing up in a slum needs an extraordinary amount of plain LUCK to change status. They may not be ALLOWED to go to school regularly (yes, there are those "parents" or single parents); the school in their neighborhood is likely a bad one with a lot of violence; most teachers are likely crap, seeing themselves as loosers, having to teach in that environment. There is a lot of pressure, and chances are kids will early on do illegal things. I mean, most kids do illegal stuff at some point of their young life, but most without any necessity - just for kicks.
Each and every child? ... Besides how much of this is "white privilages" and not their parents telling them for example "Y'all don't even need to try, whites won't give you a chance" mentality? Or "the rich ones won't give you a chance"?
Look, blob, my impression is you don't read what I write, because I literally wrote that: when you are born in a SLUM and grow up in a slum - who will be your role models? Your parents (who may be divorced, live with ever-changing partners, be on all kinds of stuff, get welfare, don't work, hit their wife, are constantly arguing, YELLING AT EACH OTHER), your older siblings (if any) who may already "earn" money with illegal activities, quit school and so on, all of them telling you that the dice are loaded against you that the system wants you do screw up, that it's not worth to work for the rich man, that you are going to be exploited - and make no mistake: they ARE, if they try. Then there is a slum as such who doesn't want people to make it, because everyone who does make it out is another hole in the story that you have no other option.
People learn when they are children. Come adolescence, nature wants them to be able to survive. If the adolescence is over, the basic behavior pattern are pretty established.
In other words - resocialization of a juvenile delinquent is as difficult as with a grown-up, once they are criminals.
But that is SOCIETY's fault, because it leaves these dumps. I mean, everyone would be appalled, if they visited you at home and you had a corner in the living room where you've been dumping all your crap leaving it to rot and fester and grow and produce more, taking posession of everything around it, slowly growing bigger and bigger...
I mean, I have no real problem with the fact that there are grown-up people living in really bad consitions, but isn't it obvious that the children of them will have a pretty abysmal hand dealt?
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 02:51 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 15:03, 13 Feb 2019.
|
JollyJoker said:
blob2 said:
Last time I checked people can exactly pick the career they want?
Well, then check again. Last time I checked, wiki said
And here I thought I was discussing this with a serious person. Aside from the fact I especially added some real-life examples to my words to give me at least a bit more credibility (hard to do it in internet). What do you want, real life names? I can very well so much ask you if all those examples you're giving are you're actual, real life, door-to-door personally made researches. You're as much prone to fake information as me. In that sense I can very well discard everything you said with the same sarcasm: and where in the wiki did you check it?
JollyJoker said:
So can Polish women pick a career in the military? And that's one example only.
You seem to know much more about my country then me... https://gypsy.ninja/the-sexiest-military-women-in-the-polish-army-will-rock-your-world/. Use the wiki you oh-so-much scorn sometimes?
JollyJoker said:
Look, blob, my impression is you don't read what I write,
Oh? You see, I had this impression about you not reading what I write since the start. Yet in my naivete I wanted to discuss some things with you. It went well I think, you had you're arguments I had mine. But when you threw the "wiki" sarcasm this actually confirmed to me you are not a serious person, even if you're right on some of the points you brought. In this case though first you started a discussion about the fact that it's white societies fault that we have these dumps and minorities suffer (immigrant neighborhoods in US), but then you switch to it's societies fault. Seems legit.
In this situation, like people smarter then me pointed already, there is simply no way I will find a common ground with you on this matter. As such I will relay this: I have nothing more to say to you. At least on this subject. Peace out.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 03:27 PM |
|
|
You left out what I quoted, and it was: Quote:
Only a few countries allow women to serve on an equal basis. They include Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.Quote:
That means, while in the meantime in many countries women can serve in the military, only in the countries mentioned above (is what wiki says), they serve "on an equal basis", which means, there is no difference in the paths and branches open to you. For example, in Germany you can become a paratrooper as a woman, if you so desire.
Generally, you can say the stricter the command chain in any profession the less likely women are in leading positions, because they have all been held by men, and men don't like to be ordered by women. 
But you miss the actual point. When not everything is open to you, and it is said that "women can serve in SUITABLE" branches, it's treating them like children, because parents would make the decision what is suitable and what is not for their children, but a grown-up can decide themselves what is suitable and what not - that's how grown-up is desfined, at least.
In the military the structures are still mostly male, even if a few women are serving.
Which is an example.
See, it's not our task to judge what may be suitable for women and what might not be. They have been found suitable by nature to bear children and give birth to them and some have been dying over time doing that - so why would we tell them that this or that may be unsuitable when we have no problem leaving them to those dangers?
Makes no sense.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 03:41 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 15:43, 13 Feb 2019.
|
http://archiwalny.mon.gov.pl/en/strona/333/LG_260_261
"According to the constitutional principle of gender equality, both women and men can become professional soldiers. The rules for entering, fulfilling and terminating military service provide equal rights and place the same requirements on both men and women."
If this is not held in regard, they can always sue. And which is more accurate, Wikipedia or constitution/government site?
Peace out.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 04:07 PM |
|
|
It seems indeed, that the wiki article I quoted from isn't up-to-date. That doesn't mean, everything is peachy, though, and you may want to take a look into this 2016 report about the general situation.
Things will still take some time, and things are bound to be difficult when women go into a male dominated accupation field and vice versa.
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 05:06 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
@Hazin Cheick
Well I don't blame you for not following fiscal reforms in France and their effect on middle classes. You are so full of your white men hate that you can't understand that, once in a while, you and yours alike aren't the center of discussion. Chill.
I couldn't possibly hate white men for the simple reason I happen to be a white man.
Likewise, I don't blame you for seeing in me your very own flaws.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 06:17 PM |
|
|
So what, there are already few guys in this thread who clearly hate their history and culture and will not miss any opportunity to put very mean and unfair comments about.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 07:13 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Things will still take some time, and things are bound to be difficult when women go into a male dominated accupation field and vice versa.
A competence and biologically dominated field, you mean. Look, I already wrote it: anyone should be allowed to compete in any field, but also accept the results and move on if it doesn't work. The army is definitely a majorly male thing. Can women be part of it, in support, logistic and command chain? Why not.
Can they be on frontlines? Apparently not, 1 year USA marines study says
You gave examples of countries not engaged in any direct contact wars. Sure, why not play some female figuration in german or canadian army, is not like they will go and kill anyone any soon, right? But those who actually fight and kill people with their bare hands, thats another story.
the commission concluded: "unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 07:13 PM |
|
|
Yes, because you must be a hater when you don't agree with certain aspects of them.
And mean and unfair comments? Well, we had that already.
You know, Sal, didn't I tell the story of Alice Weidel, the AfD leader in Germany who complained we wouldn't need any political correctness - but sued when in a satire magazin the moderator said, well, she's right, that Nazi snow. She wasn't successful with the lawsuit, mind you.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
