At face value, that sounds like the US military did something stupid. However, it might have been found that the fitness standards had been pushed way beyond what a US soldier might expect even in gruelling 'real life' circumstances, so therefore standards were lowered, and it was when women were being assessed that this problem came to the fore, or perhaps even that too few applicants of either gender were passing, so standards were lowered. The SAS is reviewing its fitness tests for applicants since a few died (last spring IIRC) on the Brecon Beacons. I'm not suggesting that one possibility is more likely than the other, I think it's perfectly possible that some people made an idiotic decision, just like I think it's silly to assume that just because any given profession has more of one gender than the other that sexism must be afoot.
My point was not really about the validity of the standard. The system may have very well set its standards unnecessarily high. The point was to establish that our genders dimorphism has created different abilities. We are not equal in a biological sense, and that will lead to inequality in a social sense when ability plays a role. A mans upper body is built for hand to hand combat which would give a man a physical advantage in things like MMA. If people want to watch the best MMA fighters, then they are more likely to watch male MMA fighters. If the best people get paid the most, then men will make more money based on just that. If pay goes to something else than ability, then that is different, but men will be the better fighters. I think you agree with this, but I wanted to be clear.
You were saying you didn't know people who advocate inequality. BM for example treats "the feminists" as a collective and then dismisses all opinions held by "feminists" due the craziest shit he's ever heard, or that one "radical feminist" who ended up in an asylum is representative of all who hold "feminist" opinions. If one has a viewpoint like that, it makes it extremely unlikely that one would ever entertain the notion that (respectively) inequality exists at all, and one probably will actively take up a contrary position to anything that opposes their belief.
True, and it might be the case for BM. I honestly dont know enough about him to have an opinion, but your logic is reasonable.
Furthermore, many people hear a basic idea such as #BlackLivesMatter or "I believe in equal rights for women" and seemingly automatically take a contrary view such as "you're saving black lives matter so you must believe that white lives don't matter" or "you want women to have more rights so that must mean you want men to have less rights". The most innocent reason I can think of for this is that some people suck hard at logic, and that may play a part, however I think the more likely/common reason for it is that many people build up a view that they appreciate that the society they live in is reasonably fair and that they get along in life because they're reasonably fair with other people and play by the rules, and when something comes along to challenge their view of society, they react in a contrary manner (taking it personally because a criticism of the system that they are part of and implicitly condone is somehow a criticism of them), in a similar way to how difficult it is to be called out on your own problematic behaviour and to react to that criticism in a logical and mature way.
I disagree with you here. I personally am not a fan of BLM. I advocate for equal rights and distain racism, but I still do not like BLM. We live in a resource constrained world, and time most definitely is a resource. If people are choosing to promote the message that Black people need to have their issues resolved, it will mean that resourced should be directed to them and not others. I dont have an issue with diversion of resources inherently, but it establishes the context of value. By promoting the idea that Black issues must be resolved, you inherently say that other issues are not as important, and/or have a misunderstanding of a resource constrained society. Further, our society has a nasty problem of focusing on one group, fixing their issue, which then leads to the idea that if the fix was not applied to others, then the others did not warrant the fix. We saw this with marriage recently.
Feel free to PM me if this is something you want to go deeper into, or maybe start a thread, because this is a big big issue and I left out a lot
Another example is what you mentioned about some people who want to redefine rape to include just about anything negative that ever occurred to them, it's very likely down to similar sorts of problems, like starting with a perception because of whatever reason, then only seeking out or taking seriously the material that agrees with that starting perception.
You know, there is a really simple explanation for this scenario: if team building was really easy then there wouldn't be billions paid to managers and consultants in all professions in order to promote it. A newly-formed team is very likely to perform less well than a team that has been managed properly for some time. It's also quite reasonable to assume that motivating a mixed-gender or all-female team might require different tactics than a typical all-male team. As the article says, they started experimenting with this last autumn, so people who are used to motivating men their entire careers are now being asked to do something new in a setting where an organisation has existed for shall we say centuries is now being asked to do it a bit differently, and they're expecting ideal results straight away? Hum.
If the issue were limited to motivation, then I would agree. A big factor for why the women were not able to keep up was physical ability.
Furthermore, having more diverse gender representation in other fields is known to be a benefit (for example, male primary school teachers in the UK are more sought after because they're in a minority and better gender representation is generally believed to result in a more chilled out staff room), why on earth it would be different in the military is anyone's guess, but coming back to my original point, people will argue based on really stupid stereotypes that women shouldn't be in the front line for reasons like "they're not as strong as men" - come on, when I was in my twenties, I could have trained hard enough to go for basic infantry, and my firearm skills were good enough even with minimal training, I could have become a basic soldier. There would always be men who were better with firearms or more physically capable than I, but I'm equally damn sure that there would be women around who could have achieved to a greater degree in the relevant fields than I could. Using a firearm does not require distinctly male traits; you have to carry it long distances and you have to be able to hold it steadily and look down the sight(s) the right way and keep calm while firing. I'm sure that you can think of several professions that require some or all of those traits (or something quite similar). Also, martial arts have quite a few established moves that involve using your opponent's strengths against them and using your own flexibility to your advantage. It would be just as bone-headed to argue that guys can't do the splits when some quite clearly can, or to try and train all guys to do the splits in the same way that women might be trained, and to assume that there's something inescapably inferior/unsuitable about guys who don't respond as well to the same training regimen that women might receive.
Women and their mental ability to withstand war is not an issue to me. I dont see anything that would suggest its a problem. What I would say is that because women are not as physically strong as me, there is an issue there. The battlefield is changing, and in the future physical strength may not be as much of an issue or one at all. At this point in time, physical ability is still a major factor on the front line.
Two primary factors are associated with successful movement carrying heavy loads lean body mass and peak oxygen uptake. Women scored lower in both areas. The men had an average of 20% body fat, compared with 24% among women. Women had an average of 10% lower peak oxygen uptake than men.
<raises eyebrow> "Not all", "I can think of some that aren't" = a valid beginning to your argument? I wouldn't be surprised that for say every five examples that are dressed sexy, one isn't. Would you say that this estimate is a reasonable one?
Its possible, but I honestly cannot say what the ratio is.
Video gaming was a successful industry in its infancy even before the days of semi-realistic graphics that were good enough to start showing a bit of human form, the fact that everyone has been complaining about for ages is that the industry simply got lazy once it started finding game types and elements that were real money spinners. Diversity in gaming (and I'm not specifically talking about gender-related diversity) in general took a nose-dive after the birth of the FPS. The idea that games are mostly for males is all part and parcel of that, and while there will be a few prats who will complain that they don't want to control a character who is black or gay, the game makers stick to the idea that their audience always will be white males and one of the results of that is sexy female body armour.
Im not huge into FPS, so yes it has been quite annoying to me personally. But, lets not forget.
just like I think it's silly to assume that just because any given profession has more of one gender than the other that sexism must be afoot.
My point was originally about peoples' attitudes towards these topics though, which is why I gave these examples. Take a look at the GG thread, or some Anita Sarkeesian threads on the AT forums. While I've agreed that some of her points have been inaccurate or off-base in my opinion, she has also made some pretty basic points that can't really be denied. There has been a serious bias in video game production (which may be steadily coming back around as video game makers discover that a bit more depth goes a long way), yet people like BM will deny that anything that AS has said has any merit whatsoever.
You say that as if saying there is bias, and that nothing should be done are mutually exclusive. Remember, the typical gamer is male. There have been shifting demographics as more women play games, and as the way we define gaming changes. It would be most logical to build a game that would appeal to men and their desires over women, because men are more likely to play games. AS has been saying that the fact that games cater to men is an inherent problem that I personally disagree with, not including many other things she has said.
Using the term 'shaming' suggests that you're trying to shape this discussion in the same way as you were talking about not encountering people who 'openly advocate inequality'. If examples of women portrayed in media are predominately a) white, b) good-looking, c) thin, d) dressed in an 'appealing' manner, that is clearly going to have an effect on how women feel that they want to fit in, how men are going to perceive women and what they're attracted to, and how women are treated (by other men and women) if they don't fit in to that implied concept of the ideal woman. If female characters in gaming generally fit the same criteria while adding a few more points to that (such as 'sexy female body armour'), that clearly is going to have an effect on gamers who consume such entertainment and also reduce the likelihood of female gamers getting involved.
Who am I to tell society what they should or should not find attractive? If people want to watch a sexy weather woman, then so be it. I address this at the end of my post.
Again, games are about fantasy and doing things you dont do in real life for whatever reason. Why be an ugly out of shape person, when you can be a better looking avatar in a game?
As for characters being mainly white, that again has to do with the history of games. For a long time, it was mainly the western world that had the wealth to spend on things like video games. That demographic is mainly white. As global wealth has increased, you see more races being added to games. Hell, most of the MMOs I now play all have Asian looking characters. Now that the west is no longer the main consumer of games, you are seeing more race.
Thin is typically more healthy then not thin. Who, if given the choice, who would not choose to be thin? I dont see a problem there.
Now, if your worry is that you think people wont be able to achieve fantasy, then you are right. But, that is not mean we need to make characters less of anything. We dont tell women they need to be less attractive so that others dont feel bad about their level attractiveness. Its genetically impossible for me to have the body of Dwayne Johnson, but I have no problem with his appearance. If anything should be done, its that we need to help people accept that some people will be better than others.
While I agree with everything in this quote as far as it goes, it's what happens when there isn't a balance. If most of my taste in films were mostly about "boy things" and T&A, most of my friends would wonder what is wrong with me. I'm 35, not 15 and even for a teen that would be adhering to a pretty rigid stereotype, and while I liked placing TR games for hours at that age, I played plenty (probably mostly) of other stuff that didn't fall into that category.
Sure, but I bet you played games that allowed you to do or be something that you had no chance of doing in real life. You probably leaped buildings, defeated monsters, drove cars you could never afford, and had a body type that is impossible in real life. Do you think that its harmed you in any way being able to play out a fantasy that can probably never be a reality?
The biggest thing I think I disagree with in terms of modern feminism is this idea that fantasy hurts individuals because it impossible or almost impossible for most. This is life. I will never be as rich as Bill Gates. I wont sleep with super models like Dicaprio. I wont be a professional sports player. It seems like people used to understand this but that its been forgotten. It really feels like we are getting into the Harrison Bergeron world where we have to level the field so nobody feels left out.
Facebook
Twitter