A Tribute to the Persecuted White, Hetero, Man

[chequita guevara]

That's a British problem.

[Solly]

True.

And it's an Affirmative Action problem.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by GP
Tingkai, I've talked to way more fighter pilots than you have...please give your theorizing a rest. Playing Civ does not make you understand what it is like land an F-14 with an engine out...

GP: you usually do better than "I know more than you do so shut up."

You have no idea how many fighter pilots I know.

Let's face it, neither of us knows what it is really like to land an F-14 with an engine out, or for that matter, what it is like to do an ordinary night landing on a carrier which is one of the most difficult tasks of flying.

However, I know what it takes to fly a plane because I have a pilot's licence. Do you?

[SnowFire]

Snowfire, if you go to England, you should go on a manor tour. Ask to see their priest holes. Being Catholic was a crime punishable by death in Elizibethan England.

Yeah, I wish. My mother's in Scotland right now on vacation, which is close enoguh... I kinda wish I'd have been able to go along too, but there are things to do back here. Knowing her tastes though, she's not going to be visiting those sites.

Mr Fun:Capitalism is eradicating racism??

So what utopian society is this that you live in? I would like to go and live there.

Chegitz: This is a false point. Most jobs could be done be trained monkeys. Companies and corporations do not lose out by hiring someone less qualified most of the time. This is why racism in hiring has persisted long past its legal banning. As long as lesser qualified white men can do a job adequately, there is no "market" incentitive to hire better qualified minority and female applicants.

If you have any real world experience, you will know that more often than not, in getting a job it is not as important what you know as it is who you know.

These are related. But Mr. Fun: Sure captialism is against racism. If you're out to make a buck, it pays to hire the best help you can and buy from the best retailers. Being a racist costs money, because you are being intentionally inefficient by buying from different people than would be the "best" if you don't like one supplier, and you're taking incompotent people of the same race over compotent people of other races. And in capitalism, being inefficient means that your firm will soon be charging higher prices and being thrown out of business by smarter, non-racist, and more efficient firms.

You have to admit that at least in the ideal that is true, the inefficiency of racism (you don't actually think racism is smart, do you?). And what to do in the ideal case is often very instructive for the actual case.

Che, as for your point, I would agree that this doesn't work as much at the very lowest levels, where there really is no such thing as "quality" and all you need are warm and willing bodies. Still, racism can hurt you- you might have to pay higher wages to get gringos to go work in your fields, but poor Latino families might be willing to work a bit under the table and for less than the minimum wage, eh? That's a case where being racism can be quite expensive. Or are you going to stand by our capitalist wonderland and say that never happens?

Anyway, I think that most work has at least some elements of quality in them. Even if it isn't much, it will make a difference. Think of it like this: If I depress the accelerator by 4 centimeters in a bunch of random cars, and by 4.02 cm in some other random cars, you'd still expect a better average in the second group, even if each case is unpredictable (maybe you've got a Jaguar going 4 cm vs. a Yugo going 4.02: the expectations lose).

As for "who you know" networks, sure, they exist. But the companies that manage to get the most quality out are still going to have an advantage, meaning that they presumably are still good at judging applicants based off of quality.

Ramo & BD: Alack my books from college are still all packed up and I'm too lazy to unpack them just yet. Interesting though.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SnowFire

These are related. But Mr. Fun: Sure captialism is against racism. If you're out to make a buck, it pays to hire the best help you can and buy from the best retailers. Being a racist costs money, because you are being intentionally inefficient by buying from different people than would be the "best" if you don't like one supplier, and you're taking incompotent people of the same race over compotent people of other races. And in capitalism, being inefficient means that your firm will soon be charging higher prices and being thrown out of business by smarter, non-racist, and more efficient firms.

You're forgetting one thing though, aren't you??

Racism is based on irrational thought.
So of course, a white executive who happens to be racist, will not follow the rational thought that hiring the most qualified, regardless of race, will improve his company.
He will continue his racist hiring pratice, because irrational ideology is very hard to discern within oneself, and to successfully convince oneself to do away with such ideas.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun
Ok, thank you for your answers, Aeson and Lone Star. There were whites who persecuted other whites because of their race.

Now, have heterosexuals been persecuted because of their sexual orientation??

Well I (and many others) have been discriminated against by homosexuals while trying to get a job. I worked in a very large kitchen while in college, and applied for a job as a waiter (there was an opening). There were about 12 waiters who worked there. Every one of them was white, male and gay. What a coincidence, so was the restaurant manager! I complained, and when I did so a number of women who had been denied employment did as well (sometimes I have a big mouth). The result of all of that was that a couple of women were hired. No one could really prove anything about the homosexual bias, because no one could prove anyone else's orientation. I didn't pursue the matter any further. This sort of discrimination is / was not uncommon either. Another one of my friends described exactly the same situation at a restaurant she worked at, an still another one of my friends was harrassed by lesbians until she quit the field hockey team. She was used to the sh!t one gets for being a 'butch' woman where society prefers a 'femme', but the harrassment that she experienced from the lesbians on the field hockey team was viscious and unrelenting.

[MrFun]

Sikander, just because you and one of your friends experienced such incidents, does not make it commonplace.

But still, neither one of you two deserved such discrimination.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

I never said that hand/eye coordination is the "key aspect" of being a fighter pilot. What I said was that hand/eye coordination is one of the most important requirements for modern air combat.
Read before you write.

Talk to female fighter pilots and ask them what they think they need to do their jobs. They'll likely tell you that they have to do twice as much work to get to the same level as male pilots. The reason for this is quite simple. Combat aviation is a predominately male organization. Women are not going receive the same type of slack given to other pilots (an yes, that slack is generally pretty slim to start with for fighter pilots).

As for physical fitness, a high level is required for fighter pilots, but pilots can get by with less muscle mass than an average combat soldier (who has to carry extremely heavy loads for extended periods). What is more important for pilots are mental abilities and reflexes. this is particularly true as fighter aircraft have evolved to the use of fly-by-wire, which reduces the physical stress of flying a jet.

You don't know what you are talking about regarding fighter pilots. A critical ability for a fighter pilot is being able to pull Gs. This is what allows (him) to evade missles which have a great deal more accelleration and speed. Pulling Gs is all about having muscles which protect your blood vessels from collapsing under the pressure and a strong heart to keep your blood flowing under the extreme stress. The alternative is to pass out (= death) or to take a less extreme line in your evasive maneuver (= a greater chance of being downed by the missle). Being in outstanding physical condition is a critical part of being a fighter pilot, and will continue to be so as long as we 'man' our fighter planes. I'm willing to wager that fighter pilots as a group are amongst the best athletes anywhere in the armed services, with perhaps only the SEALs giving them a run for their money.

When it comes to flying bombers and transports the extreme physical conditioning fighter pilots need is lessened due to more limited capabilities of those airframes. Hand eye coordination and good vision are basic attributes for pilots of all aicraft. Fighter pilots require more. This is one reason btw why you see many more female pilots flying these planes as a percentage than you do flying F-15s.

[Sikander]

As usual I find myself agreeing with those who feel that identifying people by ethnic groups does not further the goals of either individuals or the state. If we want to improve equality of opportunity for those who start out in life with less than an average amount, then the way to do that is to make efforts to improve the situations of those who are limited by their background regardless of their ethnic identities. There should be no more entitlements, no free drugs to elderly millionaires, and no AA for Michael Jordan's kids. Lets get the money to those who need it and let racial hatred, discrimination and politics die a lonely death. Let those who have been discriminated against seek redress in court, but lets strangle ethnic identity in its crib, for it tends to grow up looking a lot like David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.

[orange]

Originally posted by MrFun
If this is as widespread as you claim it to be, then this is where AA needs reform -- not abolition.

Don't you get it? That's what AA is all about

Kirnwaffen is absolutely spot on with his comments on AA

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
I'm willing to wager that fighter pilots as a group are amongst the best athletes anywhere in the armed services, with perhaps only the SEALs giving them a run for their money.

I wish people would read before they write.

As I said in my previous post, fighter pilots have to be extremely fit. The main reason for that is the need to handle g-force (which is primarily the need to contract muscles so that the blood does not flow out of, or into, the brain. Women have the necessary muscles to handle excessive g-force when they are at peak fitness levels.

Ground combat troops, such as the SEALs, need a different type of muscle strength. They need to be able to carry heavy loads over long distances under gruelling physical conditions. AFAIK, many women would simply not have the muscle mass required to do this work even if they were in peak physical condition.

Your comparison of SEALs vs fighter pilots is meaningless. It's like comparing a runner to a weight lifter.

[TCO]

Tingkai,

I've got enough of a background to throw the BS flag when you make those kinds of baldfaced assertions. I'm not trying to state the converse to you. I'm just saying that you are have no support to back up your position...and it conflicts with my admittedly anecdotal experience.

You should be careful about these kinds of charges. I've heard lots of Navy pilots say that women were getting an easier ride through training because of political pressure from above. (This was before the Hultgren event btw. Who knows who's right here? Maybe both are worng. But I've heard enough to doubt your glib statements and have seen little hard backup from you for your opinions.)

FYI: my background.

Not a pilot. Have done some flying. we did a week at the Naval Academy junior year...and I have a (female) friend who is a private pilot and who has flown with me...getting the $100 hamburgers. 2 uncles who were Navy fighter pilots. Several reservists that i worked with in my units. About 1/3 of my classmates went into Naval Avaiation and I am still social with them. My roommate for 2 years was an F-14 pilot. And talked alot about the job. Oh, and I served on a staff on an aircraft carrier and have gone along for cat launches.



The thing about being a pilot was interesting. perhaps if you could say something specific here based on your experience. Have you instructed males and females? Have you done acrobatics? Would be interesting.

[Tingkai]

With regards to your background, basically you've had experience as a passenger and you know a lot of pilots. That doesn't make you an expert.

I wouldn't claim to be an expert either. I've never flown a fighter jet. I've also never done acrobatic flying, although I have theoretical knowledge of what's involved and I can use my own flying experience (which is quite limited) as a starting point to understand what's involved. For instance, I know what it is like to pick a landing point, what it is like to flare (pull up slightly to reduce lift) and then land on a runway. That gives me a reference point for what it must be like to land a jet on a carrier (and the reference point says it must be one ****-scary thing to do). Of course understanding is quite different from actual experience.

A difference, however, is I'm posting reasons that back up my statements. You're just saying "no, you're wrong." (That's a bit surprising because I can usually count on you to put forward some decent facts). I'm not going to believe that you're right simply because you say you're right, or because you know lots of pilots. If you believe you're right, show us the facts.

As for the "women don't have what it takes" theory or "women get an easier ride" theory, I've heard that one for years. Sometimes there is some proof behind the theory, but I seriously doubt it with regards to the Hultgreen case.

Hultgreen is coming in for a landing when a technical problem cuts off her left engine just before landing (IIRC from the footage I saw of the accident years ago). Her F-14 goes off the approach and she's waved off. She adds power and that makes the situation worse. Her a/c does a 180 and crashes. All of this is happening in a couple of seconds.

The Navy says she didn't have a chance, but there are those who used this accident to further their political goal of keeping women out of the cockpit.

What bugs me is the way they have publicly trashed her. That's something that isn't done with fatal accidents. If it had been a male pilot, the investigators would make recommendations, if any, about how to avoid a repeat situation. But no one would trash the male pilot.

But the politicos dragged Hultgreen threw the mud. It just ain't kosher and it says a lot about what women face when they decide to become fighter pilots.

[MrFun]

Sikander, I cannot wait until you organize an informational campaign to educate all the white racists, and all the black racists.
Let me know how your mission goes -- maybe you will bring about the ethnic-free or race-free utopia that you dream about.

Originally posted by orange

Don't you get it? That's what AA is all about

Kirnwaffen is absolutely spot on with his comments on AA

AA is about aggressively seeking qualified minority group members over qualified white members.

AA is NOT about aggressively seeking under-qualified minority group members over qualified white members.

[TCO]

Tingkai,

I'm not trying to argue the counter argument. Merely trying to show how thin yours is. Do you have any real scientific evidence that women do better in training or that women who make it through tend to be a cut above the men in their squadrons?

Do you have even aenecdotal evidence from discussion with fighter pilots (male and female) to back up your theory? It sounds like you just dreamed this up. Give me something meatier.

I'm not throwing myself behind the argument that women got an easier pass through training. (That argument MAY be full of ****. I.e. the people who said that could be prejudiced or mistaken.) But I haven't heard anything from you to convincingly show me that that view is completely in error. As long as you are going to throw out puffy accusations without proof, I'll have to take aenecdoatal evidence from pilot friends (to the opposite) as at least the equivalent.


Regarding the Hultgren issue: The plane was recoverable by NATOPS procedures. (Application of strong rudder* and a pass on the landing.)) The Mishap Report states that. And my room-mate agrees. The initial JAGMAN investigation DID NOT exonerate Hultgren. It merely failed to examine her performance fully. The Mishap Report is a more thorough and technical flying investigation. The JAGMAN is done at more of a cursory, legal level. The mishandling of this technical issue for public consumption left the Navy with a bit of an ethical black eye. But PR is pretty important.

My room-mate, who was VERY sorry about Hultgren's loss, gave me his detailed take on the casualty after watching the landing footage and listening to the recording of the LSO's comments.** FYI: He had the same casualty on a landing approach and said it was one of the scariest things that ever happened to him. He was particularly irked on final landing that he got no kudos for saving the plane.

*His words: "standing on the rudder with both feet."

**These were made publicly available. BTW, he also faulted the LSO for not retaining calm and for the order to retract her gear. (Both distracting to the pilot when in extremis and trying to recover the aircraft, as he had done.)