Equality for men

Hair issue

Dragonlady said:
Hair is really no excuse for any woman not to do their job. There are caps women can wear to protect their hair. That would be an abuse.
Click to expand...


Believe me those girls would rather have left their jobs than tackle the work I described, and why waste everyone's time and jeopardise the whole contract (should they leave), if the men in the end were not really bothered whether it "wasn't fair" in gender equalities terms?

I know there have been changes to the weights staff are supposed to lift, so both sexes can generally cope, (and as I've got older I appreciate the smaller weights too), so yes there is a progression in these kinds of jobs, but there has to be a limit somewhere, and no one was stopping those girls doing the dirty work if they so wished.

Don't you find all the emphasis on gender equality a bit boring BTW (and whilst I'm chancing my arm, "good on Catherine Deneuve" for her recent comments :p ).
 

Sunny said:
Many of the points made by Traveler in his post are dated and obsolete, and have been considered passe for many years now. (Such as who initiates dates and marriage proposals). This is beating a dead horse.
And what do those things have to do with "rights," anyway?

The long hair issue is also pretty irrelevant. Some men have long hair, and if someone is doing that kind of work, whether they are male or female, they should be required to tuck their hair up into a hat or hair net, etc. Not exactly a "rights" issue.

How about concentrating on how much pay each person gets for doing the same work?
Click to expand...


Maybe you're right so far as marriage proposals moving on etc. goes, at least in Western countries, although I think my future wife "lead me up the garden path" forty years ago.

However those experts who study human behaviour talk of the "tells", the little signals we maybe subconsciously let slip showing who we might be attracted to, have maybe always been the same, and as I often say on threads like this one, "they tell me human nature does not change quickly" or even over millennia.

Equal pay for the same work was the practise where I used to be employed, so no arguments there, and the chairman and owner of the company would not have it any other way.
 
Traveler said:
As there is some interest in keeping this thread alive, I'll continue.
It has been my contention, from the beginning, that men do not have all of the special privileges that women do. Being exempt from registering for the draft is but one of those special privileges. If women want totally equal rights, then they must shoulder the exact same responsibilities. Period.

I said previously, and I'll say it once more, any law that requires young men to register for the draft but NOT young women, is a law based of unconstitutional concepts. When one segment of society is required to do something, or prohibited from doing something, but another segment is exempt because of gender or race, religion etc, then that is clearly unconstitutional.

Women can not demand equal rights and then turn around and claim exemption because of gender. There are a number of burdens required of all its citizens. Taxes is one of those burdens required of all working citizens. The law which required one group to pay taxes and exempt a different group, would be struck down in the federal court system immediately. Thus, it is the same with selective service registration. Equal rights require equal burdens.
Click to expand...

I know this is going to sound dreadful but I suspect there will never be political support for creating an army, (or platoon/brigade or section made up solely of women). The purpose of the exercise I'm suggesting being to see how well they fought when they came up against a predominantly male army, or whatever group of male troops they might be fighting, say clearing a bombed out city of enemy forces.

I'm not suggesting women cannot do such brave things, because I know they did take part in battles during WWII, especially in the Soviet army, but so far as I know never without men around them, and in predominantly male forces.

We'll never see the level of equality you're suggesting in my view, and I do feel there has to be limits in all things.
 

grahamg said:
I know this is going to sound dreadful but I suspect there will never be political support for creating an army, (or platoon/brigade or section made up solely of women). The purpose of the exercise I'm suggesting being to see how well they fought when they came up against a predominantly male army, or whatever group of male troops they might be fighting, say clearing a bombed out city of enemy forces.

I'm not suggesting women cannot do such brave things, because I know they did take part in battles during WWII, especially in the Soviet army, but so far as I know never without men around them, and in predominantly male forces.

We'll never see the level of equality you're suggesting in my view, and I do feel there has to be limits in all things.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There are literally hundreds of jobs in the military that women can do. In todays high-tech push button world, there is absolutely no possible reason why women can not man anti-aircraft batteries, drive trucks, or even tanks (the Israeli Army has female tank drivers). They can be trained as battlefield medics and a hundred other support positions.

I am not suggesting that there would be COMBAT units made up ENTIRELY of females. I am only suggesting that women be REQUIRED to bear some of the burden that men have always borne.

In any event, the main issue is one of MANDATED REGISTRATION of ALL citizens at the age of 18.
 
It's interesting. We know of plenty of men that have gotten deferments because of bad arches, etc.Those guys could have served in the capacities you've mentioned, Traveler. So before worrying about the equality of the draft, how about it making it fair for everyone in the first place?
 
Olivia said:
It's interesting. We know of plenty of men that have gotten deferments because of bad arches, etc.Those guys could have served in the capacities you've mentioned, Traveler. So before worrying about the equality of the draft, how about it making it fair for everyone in the first place?
Click to expand...

Any deferment that MEN have gotten in the past would apply to WOMEN. I repeat, ALL citizens must register for the draft. THEN AND ONLY THEN are deferments considered. REGISTER FIRST !
 
Differences in men and women aren't the same as equality between the sexes.
Write to your congressman Traveler. He's the only one who can help you.
 
Traveler said:
I disagree. There are literally hundreds of jobs in the military that women can do. In todays high-tech push button world, there is absolutely no possible reason why women can not man anti-aircraft batteries, drive trucks, or even tanks (the Israeli Army has female tank drivers). They can be trained as battlefield medics and a hundred other support positions.

I am not suggesting that there would be COMBAT units made up ENTIRELY of females. I am only suggesting that women be REQUIRED to bear some of the burden that men have always borne.

In any event, the main issue is one of MANDATED REGISTRATION of ALL citizens at the age of 18.
Click to expand...


Can I agree and disagree with you at the same time, is that okay?

I agree with all you say about the combat roles women can and do perform. However, my point concerned a purely hypothetical scenario where units formed solely of women are set against forces that are all or mostly male, and I don't believe there will ever be the political will to allow such units to enter active service in these circumstances, "just to se how well they performed".

I know the fighting prowess of troops from different European nations during WWII has been examined in great detail, and I believe the Slovenians (or Estonians?) were amongst the most formidable troops in the battle field (is it a kill rate versus the enemy per soldier, compared to one's own losses?). So those planning military campaigns will have to consider these issues as they relate to female forces wont they, even though historical data may be somewhat limited.
 
hearlady said:
Differences in men and women aren't the same as equality between the sexes.
Write to your congressman Traveler. He's the only one who can help you.
Click to expand...

Surely if we are all equal then it follows we must all be the same?

I know you meant "all people are assumed equal before the law", or should be considered that way.

Just one last point, I think you're being a bit proscriptive as to where a fellow forum member might seek assistance (should he really need the assistance you seem to think he does).
 
The over-arching question remains, "Is equal rights a one-way street or does it work BOTH ways" If it works both ways, then equal responsibility/burden applies.
 
grahamg said:
Believe me those girls would rather have left their jobs than tackle the work I described, and why waste everyone's time and jeopardise the whole contract (should they leave), if the men in the end were not really bothered whether it "wasn't fair" in gender equalities terms?

I know there have been changes to the weights staff are supposed to lift, so both sexes can generally cope, (and as I've got older I appreciate the smaller weights too), so yes there is a progression in these kinds of jobs, but there has to be a limit somewhere, and no one was stopping those girls doing the dirty work if they so wished.

Don't you find all the emphasis on gender equality a bit boring BTW (and whilst I'm chancing my arm, "good on Catherine Deneuve" for her recent comments :p ).
Click to expand...
First, I respectfully disagree on allowing women to get away with the refusal to do their job. The more this kind of behavior is allowed, the more we will have to contend with it.
I would imagine the issue of gender equality would not be as important to many - if not most - men, but I suspect it is one of varying importance to most women in terms of how it affects their life. I can't speak for other women, but the issue became important to me the first time someone told me I couldn't do something because I was a girl.
 
Dragonlady said:
First, I respectfully disagree on allowing women to get away with the refusal to do their job. The more this kind of behavior is allowed, the more we will have to contend with it.
I would imagine the issue of gender equality would not be as important to many - if not most - men, but I suspect it is one of varying importance to most women in terms of how it affects their life. I can't speak for other women, but the issue became important to me the first time someone told me I couldn't do something because I was a girl.
Click to expand...

I agree. A person, male or female, who can not do the job they were hired for does not deserve the job. Case in point, when I was about 19 years old I applied for a job as a concrete worker. I was hired but before lunch it was clear that I could not keep up with the other men who were much stronger than me. Clearly, I had no right to that job. It had zero to do with gender. It had everything to do with shear brute strength. I am no supporter of lowering the standards so any particular person or group can compete.
 
Since no one has been able to successfully argue that women should be exempt from being required to register for the draft, the same as men, I'll move right along.

Custody of children. I speak only about the men who want custody. Clearly some men do not wish to have custody, but there are many men who do. Men have made some slight gains in family courts regarding who wins custody of a child/children. But those men who do actually win custody are few and far between. The judges, both male and female, are overwhelmingly biased in favor of the mother. This is an outmoded concept.

If it is reasonable to say that some women have the ability to be firefighters then it is equally reasonable to say that some men are excellent care-givers. It is just as reasonable to say that men can love their children every bit as much as any woman. All I ask for here is a fair deal, one that is NOT BASED SOLEY ON GENDER. It, of course, goes without saying that the welfare of the child/children must take priority.
 
Hell no! Women should not be drafted, but the draft should be reinstated nevertheless!

I volunteered for the draft in 1960 and was immediately called up. In my Basic Training platoon, there were several who Enlisted.

They were Regular Army (RA), with a 3-year enlistment.

I was a Draftee (US), with a 2-year enlistment, and was honorably discharged just like those who enlisted, but my tour of duty
was over one year sooner than theirs!

SP/4 Harold I. Pollner,
US 56332718

Hal
 
HiDesertHal said:
Hell no! Women should not be drafted, but the draft should be reinstated nevertheless!

I volunteered for the draft in 1960 and was immediately called up. In my Basic Training platoon, there were several who enlisted.

My tour of duty was over one year sooner than theirs!

They were Regular Army (RA), with a 3-year enlistment.

I was a Draftee (US), with a 2-year enlistment, and was honorably discharged just like those who enlisted.

SP/4 Harold I. Pollner,
US 56332718

Hal
Click to expand...

Why should women NOT be drafted ? Should they be granted special privileges based upon gender ?
 
Traveler said:
Since no one has been able to successfully argue that women should be exempt from being required to register for the draft, the same as men, I'll move right along.

Custody of children. I speak only about the men who want custody. Clearly some men do not wish to have custody, but there are many men who do. Men have made some slight gains in family courts regarding who wins custody of a child/children. But those men who do actually win custody are few and far between. The judges, both male and female, are overwhelmingly biased in favor of the mother. This is an outmoded concept.

If it is reasonable to say that some women have the ability to be firefighters then it is equally reasonable to say that some men are excellent care-givers. It is just as reasonable to say that men can love their children every bit as much as any woman. All I ask for here is a fair deal, one that is NOT BASED SOLEY ON GENDER. It, of course, goes without saying that the welfare of the child/children must take priority.
Click to expand...

Here we depart I'm afraid, on the move to make men equally responsible for caregiving to children, or open all that up again.

Ultimately I believe these moves will make no one happy. I don't believe most men want it, certainly women support the current system because it essentially protects their role (I agree with you there), and as far as the children goes, in my view you cannot have "two mothers" successfully following divorce (not a point about same sex marriage here, just the man and woman supposedly taking on the same roles). My child needed the more or less constant presence of one of her biological parents in her life during her formative years and beyond. Someone had to take a lesser role in my view, "important" but nonetheless less significant than her mothers role. That stability, plus whatever contribution I was able to provide created a very level headed child, who was a pleasure to be with and a credit to all.

I argue with your last point totally, though it will take too long to explain why I feel so strongly about this, quote: It, of course, goes without saying that the welfare of the child/children must take priority.
 
IMO it goes beyond sexual assault. I think that many men and women are so caught up in the stereotypical gender roles that it could be dangerous for both the men and the women to serve in the same military unit. In some situations it would be the male feeling an obligation to protect or lookout for the women. In other cases it would be a man that feels he is smarter, stronger, etc... and a woman should just fall in behind him and do what she is told or better yet stay out of the way.

I don't have a problem with men and women serving in a volunteer military but I do feel strongly that they should not serve together in the same unit.
 
grahamg said:
Here we depart I'm afraid, on the move to make men equally responsible for caregiving to children, or open all that up again.

Ultimately I believe these moves will make no one happy. I don't believe most men want it, certainly women support the current system because it essentially protects their role (I agree with you there), and as far as the children goes, in my view you cannot have "two mothers" successfully following divorce (not a point about same sex marriage here, just the man and woman supposedly taking on the same roles). My child needed the more or less constant presence of one of her biological parents in her life during her formative years and beyond. Someone had to take a lesser role in my view, "important" but nonetheless less significant than her mothers role. That stability, plus whatever contribution I was able to provide created a very level headed child, who was a pleasure to be with and a credit to all.

I argue with your last point totally, though it will take too long to explain why I feel so strongly about this, quote: It, of course, goes without saying that the welfare of the child/children must take priority.
Click to expand...


If I had won custody of my daughter it sure as hell would have made me happy.

Men and women have different styles of raising children. There is no two mothers about it. Just two parents. I feel you are confusing child rearing with motherhood and labeling the caregiver as a "mother". At no point when I was caring for my daughter did I identify myself as "mother".

I am confused about why you would disagree that the welfare of the child should take priority ? Really confused !
 
Aunt Bea said:
IMO it goes beyond sexual assault. I think that many men and women are so caught up in the stereotypical gender roles that it could be dangerous for both the men and the women to serve in the same military unit. In some situations it would be the male feeling an obligation to protect or lookout for the women. In other cases it would be a man that feels he is smarter, stronger, etc... and a woman should just fall in behind him and do what she is told or better yet stay out of the way.

I don't have a problem with men and women serving in a volunteer military but I do feel strongly that they should not serve together in the same unit.
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with women serving as battlefield nurses ?
 
HiDesertHal said:
"Rosie the Riveter" built the Planes, Tanks, & Ships that won WW2!

HiDesertHal
Click to expand...

Good post, Hal. Yes, women doing "men's" jobs.........and when the men returned at the end of the war, the "Rosie's" were told to go home and be good little wives and mothers and leave the jobs to the men. Not much equality there, but then as certain posters on this board feel, there is equality and then there is "equality".
 
Traveler said:
Do you have a problem with women serving as battlefield nurses ?
Click to expand...

No, why nurses?

I don't have a problem with women serving in any position.

The military and war has evolved over the years. The days of digging trenches by hand and brute force one on one combat are pretty much a thing of the past.

I think that today a properly trained young woman could handle any duty that needs to be performed.

I think the key is a woman or a man volunteering to serve and then keeping them in separate units.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top