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

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Velociryx
At the risk of being labelled a horrible sexist, is it too much of a stretch to make the (obvious, I would think) notation that there ARE differences between the sexes, and that those differences tend to extend beyond those that are anatomically driven? (thus, and Spec, if I'm mis-representing you, please let me know), it can be fairly said that the rigors required of certain jobs and professions CAN be performed by certain members of either sex, there might be at least some natural pre-disposition toward one or the other, making it more likely to find such professions inordinately populated by one or the other gender?

Is that politically correct enough not to step on any toes?

*shakes head*

-=Vel=-

No, it's not a stretch. What's a stretch is to automatically assume that because the differences exist that the only conclusion is those differences can't be overcome. A woman is, by design, smaller and weaker than a man, but she can easily overcome this through exercise/training.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spec


I couldn't have said it better...but Asher will find a way to disagree. Common Asher, tell me how french poeple cant have opinions and gay Manitobians know everything.

Spec.

Manitobans know nothing, French people are girly sissies, and people with female avatars are secretly gay.

Also, the Quebec education system sucks because you apparently think Alberta = Manitoba.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Asher

Out of arguments? Hardly, not wanting to get started is another.

If you think women should be locked up in the kitchen all day, that's your problem.

I think men and women tend to be better at different things, due to physical differences and emotional differences. I think there are always exceptions.

And I do think the Gay Games are stupid.

Women shouldn't be locked up in the kitchen all day. When I said women cook and men hunt, it's just the basis of things.

Women can do whatever they want as long as they have the abilities to do so. 110 pound women should not be cops. You will never change my mind about this.

Spec.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Velociryx
At the risk of being labelled a horrible sexist, is it too much of a stretch to make the (obvious, I would think) notation that there ARE differences between the sexes, and that those differences tend to extend beyond those that are anatomically driven? (thus, and Spec, if I'm mis-representing you, please let me know), it can be fairly said that the rigors required of certain jobs and professions CAN be performed by certain members of either sex, there might be at least some natural pre-disposition toward one or the other, making it more likely to find such professions inordinately populated by one or the other gender?

Is that politically correct enough not to step on any toes?

*shakes head*

-=Vel=-

My feeling is... give everyone equal opportunity. Then let the cream rise to the top.

Of course there are differences... but everyone is different... it's not just differences between men and women.

Why eliminate over half the population right off the bat? Let women compete just like anyone else. You may be surprised. There are a lot of women out there that can do the job... and excel at it.

During WW2, the women of Russia fought in the war, and even were elite snipers. Under those conditions, against the enemies they faced (the nazis)... and they fought well.

I've known females that were a lot tougher than many men.

Anyone who can physically handle the job, whether it be a firefighter, military, or whatever... if you can do the job, then who cares if you are a woman, gay, or the queen of england? I don't.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Asher

Manitobans know nothing, French people are girly sissies, and people with female avatars are secretly gay.

Also, the Quebec education system sucks because you apparently think Alberta = Manitoba.

Alberta, Manitoba....same shlt.

Spec.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Asher

DO NOT diss the manliest sport of them all.

Sorry, but a pissing contest is the manliest sport of all.

OTBOT rating
take this into consideration

Quoted for TRUTH!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spec
Women shouldn't be locked up in the kitchen all day. When I said women cook and men hunt, it's just the basis of thing.

Women can do whatever they want as long as they have the abilities to do so. 110 pound women should not be cops. You will never change my mind about this.

Spec.

And I don't think French people should be in a position of power. You will never change my mind about this.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Asher

Out of arguments? Hardly, not wanting to get started is another.

If you think women should be locked up in the kitchen all day, that's your problem.

I think men and women tend to be better at different things, due to physical differences and emotional differences. I think there are always exceptions.

And I do think the Gay Games are stupid.

ZOMFG THE POST WAS RED

WTF

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spec
Alberta, Manitoba....same shlt.

Spec.

Yeah. One borders on BC, the other borders on Ontario.

One is rich, one is poor.

One is booming, one is shrinking.

Ace.

[Sava]

NOW MY POST IS RED

what is going on here?

[Velociryx]

No, it's not a stretch. What's a stretch is to automatically assume that because the differences exist that the only conclusion is those differences can't be overcome. A woman is, by design, smaller and weaker than a man, but she can easily overcome this through exercise/training.

I disagree.

Women CAN overcome their size/muscular deficiencies (having been designed smaller and physically weaker, on average than her male counterpart), but the historical FACT (as evidenced by taking a quick look at the people milling around you right now) is that the vast majority of women HAVE NOT done so.

Whether or not they theoretically CAN is of no consequence. The truth of the matter is that they have not.

Thus, it's really not much of a stretch to (rightly) conclude that some professions will become inordinately associated as male or female.

That's why they call 'em "exceptions"

-=Vel=-

[Spec]

Originally posted by Asher

And I don't think French people should be in a position of power. You will never change my mind about this.

Well, I guess I'm all you disagree about then.

Yay!

Spec.

[Velociryx]

My feeling is... give everyone equal opportunity. Then let the cream rise to the top.

Of course there are differences... but everyone is different... it's not just differences between men and women.

Why eliminate over half the population right off the bat? Let women compete just like anyone else. You may be surprised. There are a lot of women out there that can do the job... and excel at it.

During WW2, the women of Russia fought in the war, and even were elite snipers. Under those conditions, against the enemies they faced (the nazis)... and they fought well.

I've known females that were a lot tougher than many men.

Anyone who can physically handle the job, whether it be a firefighter, military, or whatever... if you can do the job, then who cares if you are a woman, gay, or the queen of england? I don't.

I agree completely, but would point out that, while many women MIGHT excel at a certain job, there are some jobs that women will not (and have not, historically) gravitated to in great numbers.

Why this might be the case is another question, and probably deserving of a thread in its own right, but the fact that it IS so, and calling attention to it, is certainly not sexist.

-=Vel=-

[Spec]

Originally posted by Asher

Yeah. One borders on BC, the other borders on Ontario.

One is rich, one is poor.

One is booming, one is shrinking.

Ace.

When I said shlt, I ment shlt, litteraly.


BC and Quebec are the only 2 cool provinces, and suprisingnly, the're the 2 that really want to be independant...

Spec.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No, it's not a stretch. What's a stretch is to automatically assume that because the differences exist that the only conclusion is those differences can't be overcome. A woman is, by design, smaller and weaker than a man, but she can easily overcome this through exercise/training.

I disagree.

Women CAN overcome their size/muscular deficiencies (having been designed smaller and physically weaker, on average than her male counterpart), but the historical FACT (as evidenced by taking a quick look at the people milling around you right now) is that the vast majority of women HAVE NOT done so.

Whether or not they theoretically CAN is of no consequence. The truth of the matter is that they have not.

Thus, it's really not much of a stretch to (rightly) conclude that some professions will become inordinately associated as male or female.

That's why they call 'em "exceptions"

-=Vel=-

If you want to drag woman's sufferage into this, that's your business. I'm sure others would be willing to start a seperate thread on the history of woman's rights and whatnot, but that isn't pertinent to this thread. What we're discussing (slight threadjack from original intent notwithstanding) is whether or not woman CAN do the jobs men can, not whether or not they historically have.