Enough is Enough

[KMacT]

Shay asked "haven't white folks had totally affirmative action for decades and decades?" and you replied:

That's why I think it should all be one fair trial. Let's not make amends for past mistakes by repeating them in reverse.

Advocates of affirmative action would argue that this "white folks affirmative action" (for lack of a more precise expression) is ongoing, and hense the need for some affirmative action to counter it.

The analogy is to a foot race. If we are all equally starting at the same line then affirmative action is not required (regardless of what injustices have occured in the past to previous runners). Let's just get on with the race and let the best person win. I hear this is what you are saying.

But what if some of us are being hindered before the race even starts. Maybe someone intentionally kicked them and injured their leg? Or what if the starter winks at his favorite racer just before pulling the trigger? Maybe it would be more fair, in such cases, to have those disadvantaged runners start a few yards ahead? Some "positive action" like that. Of course it would be better to punish the unfair competitors, to get all the racers back on an equal footing, but that is not as easy as it might appear.

Kevin

[Shay]

I don't know that I agree, Bubba- is a child somehow less heavy than an equal weight on rucksack? I wonder sometimes if they redesigned bags so they could be worn on the hips if women wouldn't easily pace if not outstrip men handily in the weight-hiking-endurance department. It's a case of function over form- something the military is not very good at seeing all the time.

Colin- I picked a lifesaving job off the top of my head that required terrific manual dexterity. Firefighters are not big dumb brutes, as I'm sure you know. Alright then, we can do it this way:
Let's say only men should be... lumberjacks. Then only women should be glassblowers. If only men should be soldiers, only woman should be generals. (You said we're smarter, remember? I ain't buying it wholesale, though.) If only women should be childcare providers, only men should be correctional officers. That's going with tendencies of both sexes towards interests and abilities, right?

It's just silly- there's standards in physical tendencies that exclude women, but none that exclude men. If it's so fair and right to say, "You're not good enough because you're a woman," why is it so unfair to say, "You're not good enough because you're a man?"

Gah- I'm not sure how many ways I can say this.

[Colin]

It's just silly- there's standards in physical tendencies that exclude women, but none that exclude men. If it's so fair and right to say, "You're not good enough because you're a woman," why is it so unfair to say, "You're not good enough because you're a man?"

I don't think anybody here is saying that at all, or advocating for that way of thinking.

[bubba]

too true, but two wrongs still don't make a right.

But 3 lefts do.

[Freedomlover]

All great truths begin as blasphemies
- George Bernard Shaw

Shaw was an idiot.

[Dreadbelly]

I must be slipping or something. Not one giggle, not one ruined keyboard, not one soiled monitor, nada for my efforts up above.

All I hear is crickets.

All of you are to darn serious. Go have a coffee. Or a whiskey or something. Perhaps a nice latte.

[bubba]

Shay, I've said for years that women, generally, don't belong in the infantry. This isn't saying they don't belong in the military. They can fly choppers, drive trucks and tanks, and a great many other jobs, some of which are combat jobs ( though why anyone in their right mind wants to go into combat is another issue). If a particular woman wants to try humping a 70 pound pack day after day and can sustain it and keep up fine, but I can imagine why she'd WANT to.

You can't put any of this stuff in the catagory of absolutes, all we can do is look at generalities here.

[KMacT]

Shaw was an idiot.

And what's your point?

Kevin

[GMan]

I must be slipping or something. Not one giggle, not one ruined keyboard, not one soiled monitor, nada for my efforts up above.

All I hear is crickets.

All of you are to darn serious. Go have a coffee. Or a whiskey or something. Perhaps a nice latte.

Oh yes the joys of coffee on a frazzled nerve or two, I like that idea!

[Archangel]

Shay, yeah, I'm speaking primarily in generalities. I have to since I don't know every man and woman alive. ;-) What I'm getting at is standards for professions such as firefighters and police, just as an example, should never be relaxed for anyone. Only those that can meet or exceed them should be considered for hiring and any woman that is up to the job should get equitable consideration. No hoo hoo. From the military aspect, women tend to be noticably better at marksmanship. That's a matter of fine motor coordination. On the down side they're generally not going to keep up to the guys humping a 70 pound pack across country. Our society really needs to utilize peoples strengths and minimize the weaknesses without falling into fits of testosterone poisoning or floods of bra smoke. Common sense seems to get lost in the fight and so does cooperation. No one needs to be subservient if we can learn to pull together instead of compete.

okay, that's workable. It would be to everybody's advantage to lower the weight and I would think that's being worked on. Next situation is that if the weights are able to be handled, by either gender, women can outdistance men pounce for ounce physiologically (in this hat I have Hon. B.A.). The point is that fairness would dictate that nothing changes, the pattern has been that something will be introduced to limit entry.