Estrogen and danger

[Brick Fight]

Another thought: I haven't gone into the issue of diet and conditioning, but my personal experience with family leads me to believe that a lot of women in less rural parts of the world are essentially starving themselves from late childhood onwards. This is a serious issue when combined with other cultural factors which may push women away from strength training and so on, as it tends to distort the underlying biological/genetic factors. Though not exactly pertinent when dealing with current methods of inducting soldiers (who go into the system with all these biases already loaded in), this does become a factor when contemplating what an 'optimal' system would look like.

 

Finally; given the perennial issue of soldiers and hip/leg problems, I am quietly confident that lower leg exoskeletons/frames will be the saving grace for many a future soldier's joints. We'll see how this progresses as time goes on.

Don't shorter people usually make better fighters of comparable weight due to things like center of gravity?

 

I'm split. If someone wants to serve and is able, let them. My issues are the Army's severe sexual assault issues, fraternization, lax requirements for admittance (that have been going for 10+ years), and a possible logistical problem. I'd want to see a better reporting system for assault (which is absolutely shitty to hold women back with, but it's still a problem), and enough female infantry volunteers so that it could warrant the necessary logistical setbacks. Otherwise, I'm sure there are women out there that would make better soldiers/officers than men just like vice-versa.

[Toxn]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/13/AR2009121302922.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/court-prepares-affirmative-action-decision-softer-standards-men-182205509.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11452589/Have-young-men-become-the-new-educational-underclass.html

 

http://europe.newsweek.com/what-if-colleges-had-lower-standards-boys-achieve-gender-balance-223398?rm=eu

 

Given the above, I wonder how many of the folk participating in the women-in-combat-roles debate would be comfortable with simply banning men from studying anything that isn't maths, engineering or programming?

[Sturgeon]

Don't be a dickhead, Tox.

[Toxn]

So much for stimulating debate via gentle trolling (do note that the links cover all sides of this one).

[Toxn]

Anyway, since I'm actually able to chat (work was a disaster zone until today), let's have at it.

 

How is using a counter-example like this not a good way of looking at the motives of the people debating the issue? Isn't useful to determine that, for instance, none of the people arguing for maintaining standards in the military are going out and arguing that colleges should maintain admission standards? Or that none of the folk arguing for equality as it's own issue are pushing for formal male affirmative action?

[Sturgeon]

So much for stimulating debate via gentle trolling (do note that the links cover all sides of this one).

 

To me it's pretty obvious that it's a simple false implication of hypocrisy. Others may differ, but to me that's not intellectually stimulating, nor is it particularly honest.

Obviously, I have no problem giving you a lot of leeway, but in my estimate your risk of an allergic reaction to direct feedback was pretty low, too.

[Sturgeon]

Anyway, since I'm actually able to chat (work was a disaster zone until today), let's have at it.

 

How is using a counter-example like this not a good way of looking at the motives of the people debating the issue? Isn't useful to determine that, for instance, none of the people arguing for maintaining standards in the military are going out and arguing that colleges should maintain admission standards? Or that none of the folk arguing for equality as it's own issue are pushing for formal male affirmative action?

 

The problem is that the whole framing is of rhetorical value only. Not only are you pointing out a non-hypocrisy (it's perfectly consistent for someone to believe that women shouldn't serve in combat roles, but that both men and women should be allowed to participate in STEM fields. It would be a hypocritical for a woman serving in a combat role to believe that women shouldn't serve in combat roles), but you've framed it as a civil rights issue, meaning anyone who counters the argument is expected to prove they are pro-civil rights. That distracts from an actual disagreement about whether women serving in combat roles actually is a civil rights issue, and diverts the discussion into a pro-civil rights dick measuring contest.

In short, it's a rhetorical trap, not an intellectual springboard. It's lazy, and you know better.

[Toxn]

To me it's pretty obvious that it's a simple false implication of hypocrisy. Others may differ, but to me that's not intellectually stimulating, nor is it particularly honest.

Obviously, I have no problem giving you a lot of leeway, but in my estimate your risk of an allergic reaction to direct feedback was pretty low, too.

I have been stung one too many times before, of course.

 

I am noting that both sides are being hypocritical here, although I obviously judge the "no combat roles for women" group to be more full of it in this case.

For the other side, I can't see how looking at the poor performance of men in school/uni wouldn't make you at least contemplate the idea of some sort of remedial action for men. If nothing else, it should make you uncomfortable that such a broad discrepancy exists, as this implies an honest-to-goodness biological difference.

[Sturgeon]

I have been stung one too many times before, of course.

 

I am noting that both sides are being hypocritical here, although I obviously judge the "no combat roles for women" group to be more full of it in this case.

For the other side, I can't see how looking at the poor performance of men in school/uni wouldn't make you at least contemplate the idea of some sort of remedial action for men. If nothing else, it should make you uncomfortable that such a broad discrepancy exists, as this implies an honest-to-goodness biological difference.

 

If you'd ever been to American university, I don't think you'd feel that way at all. Unless by "remedial action for men" you mean "unfucking the US university system".

Also, again, you're pushing this bit where I have to justify being OK with discrepancies. That's an activist attitude, and it's incompatible with a rationalist perspective, so far as I'm concerned.

[Sturgeon]

This whole "women in combat roles" debate seems to forget that armies exist to win wars, not to make special snowflakes feel good. Recognition of this fact is missing from the civilian contingent who keeps arguing on a civil rights basis for women to be allowed in these roles.

 

Note that this statement makes no determination about whether or not women should be allowed in combat roles.

[Toxn]

The problem is that the whole framing is of rhetorical value only. Not only are you pointing out a non-hypocrisy (it's perfectly consistent for someone to believe that women shouldn't serve in combat roles, but that both men and women should be allowed to participate in STEM fields. It would be a hypocritical for a woman serving in a combat role to believe that women shouldn't serve in combat roles), but you've framed it as a civil rights issue, meaning anyone who counters the argument is expected to prove they are pro-civil rights. That distracts from an actual disagreement about whether women serving in combat roles actually is a civil rights issue, and diverts the discussion into a pro-civil rights dick measuring contest.

In short, it's a rhetorical trap, not an intellectual springboard. It's lazy, and you know better.

We must be on really different wavelengths here.

 

Firstly, the hypocrisy isn't about STEM. It's about embracing the concept of innate differences in men/women to promote the idea that no women should be allowed to apply for combat roles. If so, why are you so complacent about what looks very much like an equally innate difference between men/women in non-STEM* degrees? A person arguing to keep women out of infantry should, if they're being consistent, also be willing to contemplate keeping men out of most university courses^. Again, this also goes the other way: a person who believes that there are essentially no innate differences between men/women should be willing to contemplate some sort of official action designed to get more men into unis.

 

Secondly, your sensitivity about civil rights issues: I could give a fuck about your commitment to empowerment or whatever. Do you really think that my aim here is to try and bait you into saying that [REDACTED] is inherently inferior so that I can "win" on a moral level? Is this really how people are supposed to have discussions? Or am I to assume that this is just an easy way to bail from an argument by anti-PC shaming me for PC shaming you or something?

 

 

* Disclaimer 1: women kill in biology and other sciences, so this would actually be more like TEM at best.

 

^Disclaimer 2: note the word "contemplate". I'm not expecting people to suddenly begin applying everything equally, because that's not how people work. But as far as I can tell there isn't even a debate here. Where women are being let into combat branches, it's because of evil liberalism and is a bad thing. Where men are doing poorly in school and getting lowered standards of admission, it suddenly isn't worth commenting on except to bash evil liberalism again for making men mentally weak or something.

[Toxn]

This whole "women in combat roles" debate seems to forget that armies exist to win wars, not to make special snowflakes feel good. Recognition of this fact is missing from the civilian contingent who keeps arguing on a civil rights basis for women to be allowed in these roles.

 

Note that this statement makes no determination about whether or not women should be allowed in combat roles.

We are completely agreed on this point.

[Sturgeon]

Secondly, your sensitivity about civil rights issues: I could give a fuck about your commitment to empowerment or whatever. Do you really think that my aim here is to try and bait you into saying that [REDACTED] is inherently inferior so that I can "win" on a moral level? 

 

No, the point of the tactic you used is to make your opponent look weak by forcing them to backpedal to assert their commitment to civil rights.

From the start I accepted the idea that you might be doing this inadvertently, but again, I figured a boop on the nose wouldn't hurt.

[Toxn]

If you'd ever been to American university, I don't think you'd feel that way at all. Unless by "remedial action for men" you mean "unfucking the US university system".

Also, again, you're pushing this bit where I have to justify being OK with discrepancies. That's an activist attitude, and it's incompatible with a rationalist perspective, so far as I'm concerned.

Note the same noises coming from the UK. And pretty much everywhere else as well. If it were just confined to the US then we could all write it off as some sort of strange byproduct of how your education system works/does not work.

A rationalist position would seek to determine why discrepancies are justifiable. Actually doing so (for instance; arguing that it is more important to society to have a functioning army than a functioning education system) would be nice. If we're being rationalist and all.

[Toxn]

No, the point of the tactic you used is to make your opponent look weak by forcing them to backpedal to assert their commitment to civil rights.

From the start I accepted the idea that you might be doing this inadvertently, but again, I figured a boop on the nose wouldn't hurt.

I will now force you to assert your commitment to civil rights at every opportunity. You will understand if I'm unable to do so at gunpoint.

[Sturgeon]

I will now force you to assert your commitment to civil rights at every opportunity. You will understand if I'm unable to do so at gunpoint.

 

Not gonna think about why I immediately responded as if you were using an underhanded debate tactic?

[Sturgeon]

Note the same noises coming from the UK. And pretty much everywhere else as well. If it were just confined to the US then we could all write it off as some sort of strange byproduct of how your education system works/does not work.

A rationalist position would seek to determine why discrepancies are justifiable. Actually doing so (for instance; arguing that it is more important to society to have a functioning army than a functioning education system) would be nice. If we're being rationalist and all.

 

Wait, what? What about "rationalism" says that discrepancies between genders need to be morally justified?

Shoot me a study from China that says their women do substantially better at university than their men, and you'll have my interest.

[Toxn]

Wait, what? What about "rationalism" says that discrepancies between genders need to be morally justified?

Shoot me a study from China that says their women do substantially better at university than their men, and you'll have my interest.

 

Because I am a sucker for exactly this sort of data-intensive request: ratio of male:female university enrollments, 2003-2013

 

 

Data from UNESCO: http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=131

 

Edit: I can do the same for almost any other country you care to mention.

[Sturgeon]

Because I am a sucker for exactly this sort of data-intensive request: ratio of male:female university enrollments, 2003-2013

 

 

Data from UNESCO: http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=131

 

Edit: I can do the same for almost any other country you care to mention.

Your answer isn't an answer to my question, and that is data for university enrollment.

[Toxn]

Your answer isn't an answer to my question, and that is data for university enrollment.

That requires no data crunching:

 

http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=131

 

If you care to look, you'll notice that women beat men pretty much across the board, with a distinct increase in female graduation percentage over time.

[Toxn]

So now that we've done quibbling about the phenomenon itself, would you care to give me an actual argument?

[Sturgeon]

So now that we've done quibbling about the phenomenon itself, would you care to give me an actual argument?

 

Stop being a dick.

 

Why should I have to explain to you - again - why the arguments you presented are not productive?

[Toxn]

This has never been a productive conversation, dude. Not here, not anywhere.

 

Wait, what? What about "rationalism" says that discrepancies between genders need to be morally justified?

Shoot me a study from China that says their women do substantially better at university than their men, and you'll have my interest.

Your question has now been answered, at least. So some level of productivity was attained.

[Sturgeon]

This has never been a productive conversation, dude. Not here, not anywhere.

 

Your question has now been answered, at least. So some level of productivity was attained.

 

Which question did you answer?

[Toxn]

Shoot me a study from China that says their women do substantially better at university than their men, and you'll have my interest.

 

Looks like it's going that way. Ditto nearly all of the developed world.