Gay events, lack of logic IMO. Mr.fun explain this to me.

[Japher]

hell, they'll probably have the same exact athletes in each event!

I now those guys are gay
and Sasha is most definitly a firecracker

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Spec
So, to get back on topic....Gay olympics annoys people like me and I find it offensive to gays everywhere because it puts them in a different category.. And on top of that, I knoe many gay people that are against the gay olympics. So, why dont they fight it? Why dont they make it stop? Because the way I see it, correct me if I'm worng, but more than 60% of gays are against these olympics.

Spec.

Do you protest the existance of the Highland Games?

And where are you pulling this 60% figure? Your ass? Cite a source.

[DRoseDARs]

Yes, Mr OTBOT, I am pretty amazing...

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Velociryx
In response to the "why not discuss it" question:

Because what does that discussion accomplish? Because it's not productive.

Blessedly, these two conditions (that a topic of conversation be a) one that accomplishes something, and b) that it be productive) are not pre-requisites for OT threads on 'poly. If they were, I think you'll agree that there wouldn't BE many OT threads on 'poly.

If you go back and read my words, I think you'll find little to get your ire up.

Simply a statement of fact (not fantasy, but fact) that in general, there aren't many women firefighters out there (far and away overshadowed by men in that profession) and that MAYBE the reason that there aren't more women is something other than the sexist hiring policies of those in positions to do the hiring.

Apologies if this smacks of sexism in your book.

We now rejoin your regularly scheduled PC love in



-=Vel=-

Only thing is, not a single poster even came close to suggesting, throughout the entire thread, that the reason most firefighters are male might be because of sexist hiring policies. Some people have misinterpreted your argument as being, "since men are generally physically stronger than women, no women should be allowed to become firefighters" and called you sexist, but that's kinda thing happens when you go into a thread chucking strawmen around and arguing against a position that no-one is taking.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Asher

You just showed how un-Canadian you are.

Thanks for the compliment.

Spec.

[Spec]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
And where are you pulling this 60% figure? Your ass? Cite a source.

That's where the ''correct me if I'm wrong'' comes in.

I am basing this on my personnal encounters, like a personnal survey. So, correct me if I'm wrong.

Spec.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Gibsie


Only thing is, not a single poster even came close to suggesting, throughout the entire thread, that the reason most firefighters are male might be because of sexist hiring policies. Some people have misinterpreted your argument as being, "since men are generally physically stronger than women, no women should be allowed to become firefighters"

Not exactly my point. If she weight 160 and was built like a man, sure, firefight all you want. But to bring back an example I used earlier, 110 pound girls should not become cops, fireman, paramedic....

My uncle died of a heart attack because the paramedics were to weak to take him down the stairs...Just like a guy up a ladder in a house on fire. It's not because a girl shows up at the window that the guy is going to lose 50-70 pounds on the spot. Now tell me 110 pound women belong anywhere they choose. That's just stupid, just to be politically correct. Political correctness is what makes this world to lenient, which is BS. When you're small, you're not verticaly challenged, you are small. And if you're dumb, you're not cerebrally challenged, you are dumb. So if you're 110 pounds, you're a 110 freaking pounds. Period. Now go take care of some children or be a doctor, but nothing that depends on yor strenght...

Compare it to an athlete, even if some 100 pound guy wanted to be a professionnal linebacker, he'll never make it, because he's not strong enough, and all teams are drafting the best players for the best results, hiring should be the sameway. Not based on political correctness.

Spec.

[Velociryx]

Exactly. Spec's original wording was provocative, for sure, but the gist of what he was saying (which I paraphrased later, and he agreed with) was that it's hardly sexist to point out that there's prolly a non-sexist reason for the disparity.

And he's right.

And for that, the PC Brigade has their collective panties in a wad.

Cry me a river.

-=Vel=-

[Gibsie]

Still can't see where anybody suggests that a woman who fails to meet the required physical standards for a job should be given the job based upon her gender. Who is this nefarious so-called "PC brigade"? Do they hide under your bed, waiting for the right moment when you might apply to become a firefighter, so they can give the post to a 5 foot girl? And does my use of the genderless term "firefighter" itself make your blood boil? I'd hope not.

To say, "fireman is not a woman's job" seems sexist even if it is not the intent, because it directly implies that no woman could meet the standards required, when we all know some could. Instead it would be better to say it's not a job for the weak, which, yes, includes most but not all women, and some of us men.

Women consistently outperform men in school (in the UK at least), so is it fair to say that men don't deserve the more intelligent jobs? Again, I'd hope not.

[Dis]

women don't outperform men in school.

don't be ridiculous. Sure they can get high GPA's, but until they start getting more engineering degrees, they will never go anywhere. Stop with the liberal arts degrees women!

edit: had to fix a grammar error. But as I said that doesn't matter. Good grammar gets you nowhere in life. Get those good degrees from good colleges, and you will get top jobs.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Still can't see where anybody suggests that a woman who fails to meet the required physical standards for a job should be given the job based upon her gender. Who is this nefarious so-called "PC brigade"?

They are the ones who want women to meet lower standards of physical strength than men to get the same firefighting job.

That leads to people showing up to a catastrophe who are incapable of carrying 200 to 250 pounds of dead weight out of danger.

[Dis]

250 pounds is a lot. There has to be a limit. I doubt most male firefighters can carry that much.

[notyoueither]

The point is that the standard of the job was lowered to get women in, as opposed to what was stated in what I responded to.

To get women in the NYCFD, the standard for bench press weight was lowered from 200 to 150 pounds, for women only. No weaker men. Not just allow physically strong women. But lower the standards for women so she would not have to be capable of the same strength as any man would need to be capable of.

It is and was bull****, and it does cost lives.

[Dis]

I just pretend not to think about it. .

Let women have their fun. There are other firefighting jobs they can do. Not all firefighters haul people out of burning buildings. Maybe she can be the one who turns the valve open to pressurize the hose.

[Dis]

In the navy we had women in all positions. And in the navy every crewmember is expected to do firefighting/damage control duties.

And we had women machinist mate. Which often involved work that required heavy lifting or a lot of mechanical ability. Women usually did not have to do those jobs. They usually got paperwork or desk jobs. Hey I don't make the rules, I just follow them.

and a woman probably can't carry a male shipmate out of a damaged space, but they could carry a female one (though some of them were porkers). The fact is the navy wants equal numbers of females as males on ships now days.

edit: amazingly I did not notice the innuendo I made in my first sentence. I usually do that stuff on purpose, but this was accidental. Honest.