|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
posted February 13, 2019 07:48 PM |
|
Edited by Geny at 19:49, 13 Feb 2019.
|
Quote:
Can they be on frontlines?
They can and they are and you don't want to be their enemy.
Hi, guy from a country with a very active military here.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 07:59 PM |
|
|
|
Well, ok. Remind me what country's modern army they fight?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 08:38 PM |
|
|
Sal, the armies handle it that way.
And it seems it works.
It's the same thing in any job - you must meet certain qualifications, otherwise you are not fit for it. Police isn't that much different from the military, isn't it?
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 09:04 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Well, ok. Remind me what country's modern army they fight?
Remind me when this:
Quote:
But those who actually fight and kill people with their bare hands, thats another story.
became a part of fighting a modern army?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 09:25 PM |
|
|
What I said was a matter of context. Canada and Germany make pure figuration in actual or not so far past conflicts so they have the luxury of using females in infantry. USA army on the others side, where the study took place, is usually directly involved where things are ugly, where people fight body to body, where almost everything is physical, so testes were driven in that sense.
I am sure Israeli army females can beat the hell out of me - I saw some pics and I will wholeheartedly let them spank me - a guy playing piano and making H3 maps, but well, their male counterparts are tough, biology isn't voodoo. You can't consider Palestinian slingers vs the robotized and mechanized modern Israel army as a working and definitive example of females aptitudes on frontlines.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 09:36 PM |
|
|
|
Both countries have (had) women in combat.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 09:41 PM |
|
|
Oh, generally speaking you're right of course. As a rule of thumb men are more suited for combat than women. I just wanted to point out a good example of a good number of women being competent fighters, given the opportunity. And believe me, even if they are weaker (which is not always true) they more than make up for it in viciousness.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 09:46 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 09:48 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:55, 13 Feb 2019.
|
Salamandre said:
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.
This answer is wrong on so many levels. So once you assume/learn he is white, his “real” culture suddenly changes accordingly? How does that work actually, I have pretty white skin, my father has browner skin, do we belong to different cultures?
Let’s skip that, remember how I said race biologically means next to nothing and as a social construct, it is a very flawed modeling. This is a perfect example, in European context, Algerian muslim does not count as “the white man.” Neither do Mexicans or other “Hispanics” or Asians, even though in terms of skin color they can be not much different than Italians or “the Spanish.” Yet, in his reply, he uses “being white” with African context, simply meaning “not being black.” It is all flexible, in old Turkish, at least in daily language, Arab also means negro, my grandmother still uses it that way sometimes. So what “white” actually means can differ quite a lot from person to person using the term, according to Nazis, Slavic people werent white either, that is why they traated English prisoners and Russian ones very differently.
Thirdly, how come you conclude JJ hates his culture, because he is critical of its history?
End of replying to the specific quote. Now in general:
It is indeed “crystal clear” women and blacks were opressed in the past, they couldnt vote, they couldnt own property, they were excluded from all high profile occupations, they had no instrument of self-determination whatsoever. If that isnt cyrstal clear, I dont know what is. If that wasnt so, why would you need to add the paranthesis when you write something similar to (paraphrasing, couldnt bother to dig in 3 pages for quote hunting):
- Is racism or sexism a real big problem in our democracies. (I mean today, of course.)
The past, everybody knows what it is really, this is not specific to the West either, slavery was legal in Saudi Arabia up untill 1965, that is a century more from the U.S. and the slave ships in the U.S. that downloaded in the 18th century, were loaded their “cargo” in North African Ottoman ports. About today, we have basically 3 perspectives if we simplify:
1- Such issues are almost resolved if not completely, and policies concerning them are misguided and they are just spoiled and misplaced white guilt.
2- Great progress has been achieved but we are nowhere near done. The dose or type of some political correctness can be counter-productive though, since you cant really change people’s mind if you behave like monks in a frenzy, accusing every joke, remark etc of being inappropriate.
3- March on with full thrust, this is all simply progress.
I am usually closest to two, but it also depends on the case.
Lastly, about the Trump voter cop in the video no matter what his “color” is, his argument is a miss, because he talks as if “white privilage” means all whites being comfy and rich and so on. Obviously, it doesnt mean that. It means social mobility (the possibility of moving up from one class to another) has different flexibility for majority and minorities. In classical times, social mobility was considered a bad thing: A peasant was expected to “know his place,” a middle class merchant, no matter how wealthy, wishing to marry a dutchess would be frowned upon. Since late 19th Century, mostly with the effect of Marxism and socialist movements, this changed, today a business man of “humble background” is respected even more than a third generation “spoon-fed” business man. But social mobility and what affects its parameters is still far from ideal. That is what “white privilage” points at. You may think it does that with extreme exeggeration but it is still not what the guy on the video is responding to.
Edit: “closest to two number two” fixed that, I really hate writing on a phone.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 10:56 PM |
|
|
artu said:
If that isnt cyrstal clear, I dont know what is.
I fail to find that in any artwork of present of past time. The culture is the enhanced and homogenous mirror of ideologies, beliefs and struggles of a particular time. Whatever I read, Goethe, Zweig, Hesse, Shakespeare, Balzac, Poe, to name a few - the people who so eloquently painted the genders complex relations then handled it to us, they sketch women as intellectual equals, beings of tremendous resolve and people of great emotional depth. For which it is worth to die, for whose condescend smile it is worth to crawl. Mysterious creatures, the way to please them remains of unknown designs. To conquer their heart sorrow awaits you at corners. And when you succeed, there is no greater joy and reward.
No, is not crystal clear. Stop being a mechanized brain and feel the history. Men are women worshipers, they always were that way. The narrative of the woman object and oppressed does not fit when you read such things. People don't read books who lie. I am sorry you can't see from this angle, maybe one day.
It was many and many a year ago,
In a kingdom by the sea,
That a maiden there lived whom you may know
By the name of Annabel Lee;
And this maiden she lived with no other thought
Than to love and be loved by me.
I was a child and she was a child,
In this kingdom by the sea,
But we loved with a love that was more than love—
I and my Annabel Lee—
With a love that the wingèd seraphs of Heaven
Coveted her and me.
And this was the reason that, long ago,
In this kingdom by the sea,
A wind blew out of a cloud, chilling
My beautiful Annabel Lee;
So that her highborn kinsmen came
And bore her away from me,
To shut her up in a sepulchre
In this kingdom by the sea.
The angels, not half so happy in Heaven,
Went envying her and me—
Yes!—that was the reason (as all men know,
In this kingdom by the sea)
That the wind came out of the cloud by night,
Chilling and killing my Annabel Lee.
But our love it was stronger by far than the love
Of those who were older than we—
Of many far wiser than we—
And neither the angels in Heaven above
Nor the demons down under the sea
Can ever dissever my soul from the soul
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
For the moon never beams, without bringing me dreams
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And the stars never rise, but I feel the bright eyes
Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;
And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side
Of my darling—my darling—my life and my bride,
In her sepulchre there by the sea—
In her tomb by the sounding sea.
Poe - Annabel Lee
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 13, 2019 11:30 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:34, 13 Feb 2019.
|
I think you mistake admiration for being peers, a man can admire a horse in such a fashion, too. Well, not on that level, since we are not hardwired to be attracted to horses but you get my point. If we go into specifics, Shakespeare is indeed seen as a “pioneer” in this regard, him and Tolstoy are always considered writers who can emphatize with women on a level beyond their time, their female characters are so in flesh, it’s incredible. (I even remember a conspiracy about some of Shakespeare’s work actually being a woman’s work, his historical identity being arguable and so on.) Their political views may not be in sync with such depth, but that is what being a genius is, to be above your opinions on a deeper, intuitive level. Zweig is a 20th Century progressive, so I dont think he fits at all as a historical example in this regard. Balzac, I’m not much into, I need to read more. I dont think Goethe is a very good example, he is the type that falls for “innocence” in a woman, almost like falling for something child-like, pure, not intellectual, on the contrary, simplistic. Poe’s Annabel Lee is more like Dante’s Beatrice, a love from youth that died in her prime, he even has this almost architectural explanation of how he came up with the poem, going “what was the most tragic thing imaginable, death of beauty, so I picked that theme.”
Also, more generally, if you pick the top geniuses from literature history, of course, you will witness emphaty and insight much more advanced than the regular norms of their age, that’s why they were the geniuses they were and not any men to begin with.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 14, 2019 02:16 AM |
|
|
I already told you that if ALL societies on earth, while not being able to communicate each other, as it wasn't possible until very late, used same gender hierarchy and complex relations, you have to search elsewhere than universal and mindful "oppression". There wasn't a single successful society which tried or wanted to create an absolute equality between man and woman, simply because at that times, such thing would have lead to its destruction. Men and women had to fulfill very specific tasks, in order to keep their community alive, then men conditions of work were incredibly harsh so there had to be a counterpart.
artu said:
I think you mistake admiration for being peers, a man can admire a horse in such a fashion, too.
yeah, don't you feel your heart beating faster when you see a horse?
This is hopeless.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2019 03:47 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
This is hopeless.
Yep. They would deny they had a nose on their own faces, if snowflakes told them to. It's like others have control of their brains, or something. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 14, 2019 06:26 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:28, 14 Feb 2019.
|
@Sal
The analogy is not about the degree of admiration and how fast it makes your heart beat, this is even emphasized already, so you deliberately pretending to misunderstand is telling me someone is “hopeless” indeed. Thomas Jefferson had chilrden with his own slaves, who knows, it’s very probable he also wrote some poetry to them in secret, it is more than probable his heart rate was off the charts during concieving those children. Were the slaves not oppressed? If being a slave doesnt constitute oppression, wtf does?
You now slowly switch from “it’s not cyrstal clear there was oppression” to “oppression was inevitable to some degree due to circumstances” which is actually saying there HAD TO BE oppression up until very recently. If that is the case, isnt it also true that the remnants of this also remains, since no society can fully transform overnight? The circumstances changed, yet, old habits die hard. Btw, if one thing is not cyrstal clear, it is that historical circumstances had to produce the exact same results, this is like a muslim telling you “women had to wear burkas and there had to be one-sided polygamy, because men had though jobs.” And trust me, if you read some of their Divan poetry, you’ll see some admiration for women which will blow your mind.
After the switch to property and owning of land, almost every society developed some level and form of patriarchy, this is true. Because you have to make sure it is your kid who inherits your lands and the ones getting pregnant should be kept in line. (So virginity as morality is basically the good ol’ “selfish gene.”) This doesnt mean every variation of custom and tradition originating from this was justified.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2019 07:09 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
I already told you that if ALL societies on earth, while not being able to communicate each other, as it wasn't possible until very late, used same gender hierarchy and complex relations, you have to search elsewhere than universal and mindful "oppression". There wasn't a single successful society which tried or wanted to create an absolute equality between man and woman, simply because at that times, such thing would have lead to its destruction. Men and women had to fulfill very specific tasks, in order to keep their community alive, then men conditions of work were incredibly harsh so there had to be a counterpart.
This is hopeless.
This is utter nonsense. ALL people's (including children's) conditions were harsh - that you deny that just goes to show you have absolutely no idea. What are you thinking - that in hard times men were living under incredibly harsh circumstances, but women didn't? Sat around and watched the grass grow?
And your conclusion is just as wrong - you just need to look how things work best, where people have to give their utmost to get a job done. Say, in team sports. Teams work best, when they are TEAMS, not lords and slaves. In the military as well, mind you. Sure, there is that military hierarchy; but when there is actual action, in combat, units, squads, work best, when the hierarchy is based on ABILITY, and people ARE equals. In earlier times things were different. Noblemen became officers not by merit, but by birthright, and that was hurting "the team". Men using the whip against men hasn't been working that well, so why would men using the whip against women would work better?
And what does the bold print even mean? That men had to suffer intolerable crap and needed a doormat to step on?
This is more than ridiculous - it's naive. Someone told you a lot of crap and you actually believe it.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 14, 2019 08:15 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
men conditions of work were incredibly harsh so there had to be a counterpart.
Because giving birth to 8 children before modern medicine is basically a luxury cruise.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2019 08:25 AM |
|
|
|
That was actually spare time occupation.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2019 10:17 AM |
|
|
As an afterthought, there might be some misconception here.
Of course, there ARE biological differences between the sexes (and I don't mean strength here), and quite probably, culture being equal, this leads - on average - to a different "curve of interest distribution", which also means that an expectation of 50:50 sharing of available jobs in each area would be an artificial construct.
However: it is quite difficult to come up with models, how this would look like and what this actually means. It seems that, generally spoken, men may have a bigger interest in objects, while women have a bigger interest in subjects (things/people) - but what does that ACTUALLY mean when you look at career choices. I mean - wouldn't THAT make WOMEN the better leaders? Better politicians, for example?
I've heard people coming up with "nurse" as an example for a job better suited for women - but what about doctor? Isn't THAT about the people as well? Isn't there a vast majority of jobs, if not all, that you can do for different reasons and for different FOCUS POINTS? I mean, one may become a doctor to help people, while another may become a doctor to fight sicknesses, while a third may have lost a beloved one as a child and wants to make up for it.
So, again. This is not about leveling and quotas. It's about the fact that conclusions are drawn from "biological differences" that miss any foundation. People do the same things for different reasons.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 14, 2019 10:23 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Thomas Jefferson had chilrden with his own slaves, who knows, it’s very probable he also wrote some poetry to them in secret,
The "probably" here is enough. Evidence, please.
artu said:
Were the slaves not oppressed? If being a slave doesnt constitute oppression, wtf does?
I didn't say they weren't, I say every people, of any color and any religion on earth possessed slaves at a precise time. Thus no reason to call whites evil. Just turn the page and move on, evil has no color.
artu said:
You now slowly switch from “it’s not cyrstal clear there was oppression” to “oppression was inevitable
Funny how you put words in my mouth. I say what you guys call oppression is natural selection at hard times. Listen to Camille Paglia in your spare time, your way of thinking is utterly simple and unfortunately, not constructive at all. By constantly accusing the men, or white men specifically, you undermine the largest and most effective work force which created progress, until now. This is where I find these "white evil men" rhetoric pathetic.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 14, 2019 10:38 AM |
|
|
I dont constantly accuse white men or anybody else, accusing is not my line of thinking. JJ wrote something, you replied “it’s not cyrstal clear there was oppression on women and blacks in the past” and it is actually crystal clear there was, so I stated it.
The Jefferson example does not require evidence because it is talking about a probability, it is a hypothetical formulating just because you adore someone, doesnt necessarily mean you evaluate them as your peer. Jefferson had relationships with his slaves, he flirted with them, he wasnt the “go in the barn and rape them” type, So, it is indeed very probable he also wrote poetry for them because that was like what any educated man did while flirting back in those times. If he didnt, that doesnt change my argument a bit at the core.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
