Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread
- Thread starter thethe
- Start date
A handful of posts over nearly a 10 year span is enough to signify that they are "obsessed with all women flights"..........
I mean ****, someone had to scroll back all the way to 2017 for one of those.
sturg33
I
Well I said over the last decade.
The reality, having flights without men on them, and bragging about it, is the sexist thing and very dangerous thing
If they are qualified to do the job, WTF does it matter? Sure, I would agree that are significantly more men qualified to do these jobs than there are women. That doesn't mean there are no women qualified to do these jobs.
Either you can do the job or you can't. There are plenty of ****ty male soldiers/firefighters/pilots etc that don't get half the sort of hate when they **** up that these women pilots have gotten, without anyone actually knowing if they were good pilots or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
sturg33
I
Well, a few reasons...
1. Because by definition, they can't do the job to same standard as men. the military has lowered the strength bar in order to allow more women in. we saw the ****show of the LA fire department - bragging about how their women can't get a man out of a burning building. Yes - I'm sure there 0.1% of amazon women out there who can meet the lofty standards set for men... but I suggest we not change overarching policies because of those outliers
2. Even if they can meet the standards in a controlled environment, they almost certainly can't handle stress and chaos as well as men can. It's their DNA. It's not their fault. But biology doesn't cease being real because we wanna promote girl power. Remember when shots were fired at President Trump? The female secret service agent was panicking, and worse, wasn't even tall enough to block him anyway. Remember the helicopter who flew into a plane? Clearly there was an issue of performing under stress there? I would imagine it's pretty scary landing a plane in a windy snowstorm... this women wasn't able to handle that pressure. As I've shared before - my military friends would tell me they would have to go out of their way to get women to safety when shots were being fired. They spent more energy on protecting them than protecting themselves
3. We as a society should not want our women in dangerous roles. We should protect our women from harm, not ask them to go fight the Taliban.
Its wild that Chivalry turned into sexism.
Such a terrible time - Instead of trying to seem 'enlightened' use basic ****ing reality.
1. I never suggested we should lower standards.
2. Much of this is either anecdotal or opinion based. It most certainly is not "in their DNA" that they can't handle stressful situations as well as men. Are there studies that show men in general and better in emergency situations than women? Sure. There are also plenty of cases where the opposite is true. Again, you are making assumptions about these women without having any of the facts.
You say she wasn't able to navigate in a snow storm. Says who? I imagine it's pretty ****ing hard for any pilot to do that, regardless of gender. You making that assumption entirely because she is a woman, and not based on any facts of the situation.
3. If a woman WANTS to fight the Taliban and she has the capability of doing so without lowering our standards, then I don't think you're opinion is relevant.
Last edited by a moderator:
sturg33
I
1. yes you did. Bc you defend the current system which has lowered standards to promote girl power
2. yes, there is tons of data, research, and studies on this. Women don't operate in uncertainty nearly as well as men. I do have the facts. You just want to promote girl power
3. If a woman WANTS to play offensive tackle for the Tennessee Titans and she has the capability of doing so without lowering our standards, then we should allow it! But you know, such a woman does not exist on planet earth. What do you take from that?
1. No I didn't. I literally have maintained the entire time that if a woman is qualified to do it, then that is all that matters. I never suggested lowering standards is acceptable.
2. There are plenty of studies to suggest the opposite. A simple google search shows that. Regardless, what I was more focusing on that is that you don't have any facts to support that Helicopter or the pilot in snowstorm panicked. You are making that assumption 100% because they are female and not basing that opinion on fact.
3. I didn't say anything about the NFL. There are, in fact women, that can perform all the duties of the average male fireman. Or the average police officer. Or even, in fact, the average male pilot.
sturg33
I
1. do you defend women in the military or fire departments today? if so, you are defending lowering of standards... because that is what they did to achieve that goal of more women
2. there are also studies that suggest women aren't as fast as men because society tells them they aren't. there is so much academic bull**** that promote how there are no differences between the sexes, and its bull ****. Stick to science - the real science. not academia
3. so you agree there is not a woman on planet earth who could meet the standards of an NFL lineman. so we must protect women from playing on a football field, but let's send them to Afghanistan because they want to do it, and girl power!!!
Tapate50
Well-known member
Lights got flipped on and the roaches went back to the shadows
What the **** do you think Academia is? What distinguishes real science from “Academia” science? Results you don’t agree with? Results that require more than a stopwatch? How about instead of throwing a strawman argument about running speeds, you engage with Carp’s actual response. It might be a more productive conversation than just ignoring it and claiming you only trust science that reinforces your worldview.