Tuesday, June 12, 2012

So That Everybody Gets a Fair Shot, How About a "Workweek and Occupational Fatality Fairness Act"

In a recent CD post, I argued that we could close the gender-pay gap by closing the gender-hours gap.  Another way to close the gender-pay gap would be to close the "occupational fatality-gap."  For as long as the BLS has been keeping records, females have been significantly under-represented in occupational fatalities, by a ratio of about one female death on the job per 12 male deaths in most years.  Men are disproportionately represented in higher-paying, but higher-risk occupations like mining, fishing, farming and construction.    

With that in mind, I had  a little editing fun here with a recent White House press release titled "Fighting for Equal Pay Workweeks and Occupational Fatalities and the Paycheck Workweek and Occupational Fatality Fairness Act:"

"Today, the President continues to advocate for passage of the Paycheck Workweek and Occupational Fatality Fairness Act, a comprehensive bill that strengthens the Equal Pay Workweek and Occupational Death Act of 1963, which made it illegal for employers to pay wages to men and women to work an unequal number of hours per week, or suffer from differences in occupational deaths who perform substantially equal work.   The Paycheck Workweek and Occupational Fatality Fairness Act is commonsense legislation that, among other things, would achieve the following:
  • Better align key Equal Pay Workweek and Occupational Death Act defenses with those in Title VII.
  • Bring remedies available under the Equal Pay Workweek and Occupational Death Act into line with remedies available under other civil rights laws. 
  • Make the requirements for class action lawsuits under the Equal Pay Workweek and Occupational Death Act match those of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.    
  • Protect employees who share their own salary workweek or occupational injury or fatality information at work from retaliation by an employer.
The existing legal tools available to remedy pay workweek and occupational fatality discrimination differences by gender are not enough, so Congress needs to pass the Paycheck Workweek and Occupational Fatality Fairness Act now.

From the beginning of his administration, President Obama has worked to ensure that women are paid fairly for their work work exactly the same number of hours per week as men and are exposed to the same work-related fatalities as men. The President is committed to securing an equal pay for equal work workweek and equal occupation death rate for men and women because it’s essential that we build an economy where everyone gets a fair shot at working an equal number of hours regardless of gender and gets an equal chance of getting seriously injured or killed on the job.  American families and the health of our nation’s economy depend on it."

73 Comments:

At 6/12/2012 4:33 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

wow, is it national "release a tiger in a largely female workplace so they can get equal pay week" again already?

time just flies by.

 
At 6/12/2012 5:19 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"So That Everybody Gets a Fair Shot, How About a "Workweek and Occupational Fatality Fairness Act""...

I don't know, let's see if we can get Senators Murray, Feinstein, and Boxer behind this sort of legislation...

Maybe that sharp as a door knob Nancy Pelosi will throw her support behind the effort...

 
At 6/12/2012 5:27 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Obama's female staffers also make close to 20% less. Also, there are no women in his inner circle.

He surrounds himself with men all the the time and excludes the women on his staff. Isn't it only fair that his entourage is split 50/50 between men and women at all times? Apparently, our great champion of women can't stand to be around us. Or pay us according to his own lofty principles. That stuff is for the little people, I guess.

 
At 6/12/2012 11:02 PM, Blogger denizenofgoo said...

Regarding Larry G's 'history' in the previous thread, Warren Farrell, an erstwhile member of NOW found out that:

"Surprisingly, Farrell argues that comparable males and females have been earning similar salaries for decades, though the press has yet to notice. As long ago as the early 1980s, he writes, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that companies paid men and women equal money when their titles and responsibilities were the same. In 1969, data from the American Council on Education showed that female professors who had never been married and had never published earned 145 percent of their male counterparts' pay.

Even during the 1950s, Farrell says, the gender pay gap for all never-married workers was less than 2 percent while never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106 percent of what their white male counterparts made."

And as he himself likes to point out, this was before the equal pay act.

 
At 6/12/2012 11:20 PM, Blogger denizenofgoo said...

More interesting tidbits from Warren Farrell's 2005 work 'Why Men Earn More' here.

 
At 6/13/2012 6:15 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

interesting perspective. It's almost as if all those in Congress who voted for the 1963 Equal Pay Act were snookered, eh?

Are we arguing here that the Equal Protection clause itself is irrelevant and unneeded?

 
At 6/13/2012 8:53 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

methinks-

or michelle will not allow it.

i suspect when it comes down to pants wearing in that family, they go to her.

 
At 6/13/2012 8:56 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

equality guarantees are for opportunity, not outcome. mandating equality of outcome is stupid and counterproductive.

if you and i take a class and you study hard and i screw around, whey should we get the same grade?

if we each make dinner (from the same ingredients) and yours is awful and mine delicious, why would anyone pay the same price for them?

if you want a counterproductive, effort and incentive destroying and deeply unfair system then mandating equality of outcomes is the way to go.

 
At 6/13/2012 9:12 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Methinks,

It's not just Obama. Some of the most feminist Senate Democrats pushing the "war on women" crap, includingNancy Pelosi, are also guilty of paying female staffers less than males.

 
At 6/13/2012 11:01 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

You're right, Paul. I didn't mention them because Juandos had that covered in his comment.

I don't know if it's a Michelle thing, Morganovich. I just don't think most men want to chat about childbirth and menopause as they play a round of golf. I exaggerate, but you know what I mean. Women have complained for ages about being excluded from these adventures because a lot deals get done on golf courses. You'd think the general on the women's side in this vicious war on women wouldn't be guilty of such sins.

 
At 6/13/2012 12:21 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

How about equality in incarceration?

 
At 6/13/2012 3:03 PM, Blogger denizenofgoo said...

"interesting perspective. It's almost as if all those in Congress who voted for the 1963 Equal Pay Act were snookered, eh?"

Something that would apply to Lily Ledbetter story as well.

Imagine, then, the surprise and disappointment of the laws'(equal pay act) supporters when for nearly twenty years following the laws' passage, the ratio of women's pay to men's pay remained almost exactly 60%.

The college gender ratio flipped 30 years ago, Title IX has been used for equality of "female sports" and might extend to STEM.


And be careful what you wish for,

"where everyone gets a fair shot at working an equal number of hours regardless of gender and gets an equal chance of getting seriously injured or killed on the job."

How Feminism Wrecked the U.S. Forest Service

If women become half the doctors and cut back on the hours worked, and men follow instead of the other way round...

 
At 6/13/2012 3:10 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I think most believe that equal pay for equal work is a fair approach.

zealots get into the weeds - on purpose.. IMHO to dilute the core issue.

History is rampant with gender and race discrimination on job opportunity and pay...

and yes.. folks like NOW also participated in trying to expand it out beyond the basic issue.

none of this makes the core issue a lie.

there is ample evidence of discrimination ....

just look how the military treated women....

 
At 6/13/2012 3:16 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"zealots get into the weeds - on purpose.. "

As opposed to Larry The Pragmatist who always comes down on the side of Democrats and more taxes, regulation, and government in general. He, like Obama, just wants to find out what works and solve problems!

"just look how the military treated women...."

Huh?

 
At 6/13/2012 3:16 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"zealots get into the weeds - on purpose.. "

As opposed to Larry The Pragmatist who always comes down on the side of Democrats and more taxes, regulation, and government in general. He, like Obama, just wants to find out what works and solve problems!

"just look how the military treated women...."

Huh?

 
At 6/13/2012 3:18 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry G,

The main problem is that private entities should be able to discriminate on whatever criteria they want. If as a business owner, I only want to hire white men over the age of 60, I should be able to do that. It's my business and it's my money.

The idea that government should end this is dubious at best. Then there's the whole question as to whether it actually can "fix" this and not make things worse. This seems to not be the case.

Good old profits in a free market does a much better job at providing equal pay for equal work regardless of race, gender, and age. It always has and it always will.

In addition to this, differences in outcomes is not indicative discrimination. That's the main thrust of the blog post: simply noting differences is not enough to claim discrimination.

 
At 6/13/2012 3:20 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry G,

just look how the military treated women

Look at how men are treated in the military. Care to guess the number combat deaths of men compared to women? The inequalities of the way males are treated as opposed to females is staggering in the military, with men, as usual, bearing the brunt of that discrimination.

 
At 6/13/2012 3:23 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"The main problem is that private entities should be able to discriminate on whatever criteria they want. If as a business owner, I only want to hire white men over the age of 60, I should be able to do that. It's my business and it's my money."

and black people ?

"The idea that government should end this is dubious at best. Then there's the whole question as to whether it actually can "fix" this and not make things worse. This seems to not be the case."

in a representative govt, I would assert that "dubious" is decided by voters and elections.

"Good old profits in a free market does a much better job at providing equal pay for equal work regardless of race, gender, and age. It always has and it always will."

it's a point of view for sure.

"In addition to this, differences in outcomes is not indicative discrimination. That's the main thrust of the blog post: simply noting differences is not enough to claim discrimination."

in terms of measuring hours incorrectly to claim discrimination, I'm totally on board.

I'm on board with any incorrect calculation being exposed and rejected.

But when you tell a black person they cannot work on an assembly line - or drive a bus or fly a plane - most people are not going to go along with that.

The Equal Protection clause is interpreted to mean - equal opportunity (not equal outcomes).

 
At 6/13/2012 3:27 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" just look how the military treated women

Look at how men are treated in the military. Care to guess the number combat deaths of men compared to women? The inequalities of the way males are treated as opposed to females is staggering in the military, with men, as usual, bearing the brunt of that discrimination."

women WANT equal opportunity at the same jobs the same risks...

they WANT to be equal.

the military denies them that opportunity....

 
At 6/13/2012 3:37 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I think that women right out of college taking jobs in the same profession as men still get paid less - before any life choice or work decisions that might affect their earnigs are made.

 
At 6/13/2012 4:15 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

You THINK, Hydra? Do you have some numbers to back that up or are you speaking from your own experience as a young lady just starting out in the world?

 
At 6/13/2012 4:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

".... from your own experience as a young lady just starting out in the world? "

;-0

 
At 6/13/2012 4:21 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

women WANT equal opportunity at the same jobs the same risks...

And we all know that if we want something then others are obliged to give us what we want, right, Larry? Because we're three years old.

they WANT to be equal.

Women are not equal. We are not equal in strength, we are not equal in the eyes of the enemy and because of that we weaken some operations.

I'm sure there are men who would like to model women's clothing during fashion week. Ain't gonna happen. And there are surely some men who would love to give birth.

the military denies them that opportunity....

Boo hoo.

 
At 6/13/2012 4:26 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" We are not equal in strength"

ha ha ha

you mean they can't take out your testicles with an AK-47 because they lack "strength"?

;-0

 
At 6/13/2012 4:51 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Larry, you idiot, the U.S. military doesn't use AK-47's. It's a Kalashnikov rifle designed and produced by the Soviets.

 
At 6/13/2012 4:57 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry G,

and black people

They can discriminate against whites.

in a representative govt, I would assert that "dubious" is decided by voters and elections.

Thankfully, we live in a country where this is NOT true. The constitution enumerates ALL powers of the federal government. It says nothing as to how private entities should govern themselves.

it's a point of view for sure.

It's a point of fact.

But when you tell a black person they cannot work on an assembly line - or drive a bus or fly a plane - most people are not going to go along with that.

This is why the power of markets are so great. No one HAS to buy anything or do any business with any private entity. If consumers don't like that company X doesn't hire blacks to work on the assembly line, people are free to not buy from them. Additionally, the competitors of company X are free to hire all those black people that company X doesn't want. The bottom line is the bottom line. When company X loses out to its competitors, it can accept those losses or it can start hiring blacks.

The Equal Protection clause is interpreted to mean - equal opportunity (not equal outcomes).

There is no such thing for equality of either. I do not have the same opportunities of someone born and raised in Boston, MA. Similiarly, very few have the same opportunities as me, being born and raised in the suburbs of DC. All that can be sought after is equality before the law: we all have the same rights; we are all subject to the same penalties for committing the same crimes. This is difficult to achieve all ready. The other two types of equality, impossible.

women WANT equal opportunity at the same jobs the same risks

This is false. Woman can join just as easily as men. Look at the percentages. The military is overwhelmingly men because women do not want to be in the military. Additionally, most women can not do the same job as a man in the military. Physical fitness and strength actually matters in most things military. Women just can't compete.

they WANT to be equal.

No they don't. But even if they did, they are not. Wanting something to be true doesn't matter.

the military denies them that opportunity

As it should.

 
At 6/13/2012 5:05 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

if you please Methinks..

ANY US-issued weaponry... certainly...

what a nitpicker you are... is that gender?

 
At 6/13/2012 5:06 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry G,

Strength matters a lot in the military. Women typically just aren't big enough or strong enough to do the job. Additionally, there are psychological factors (like basic human nature) that need to be taken into account. Women definitely should NOT be in combat platoons.

 
At 6/13/2012 5:10 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

anyone who can meet the strength specifications of a given job.

no matter the gender...

it's the job not the gender.

for what it is worth..

I AGREE that if an honest spec for a job ends up excluding most of a gender..then it's not discrimination.

but questions arise as to what the specs really ought to be.

you don't need strength to kill others in a combat scenario.

there are a number of armies in the world that have women in the same combat roles as men.

 
At 6/13/2012 5:21 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"they WANT to be equal.

the military denies them that opportunity...."

You obviously never spent a moment in a combat MOS. There's alot more to military life than shooting an "Ak 47."
And where exactly are all these throngs of women protesting their lack of a combat role? I'm sure they exist somewhere, but have you ever met one?

Only liberal douchebags would try to feminize the killing machine that does violence on behalf of soft idiots like you while you sleep soundly in your bed.

 
At 6/13/2012 5:30 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Only liberal douchebags would try to feminize the killing machine that does violence on behalf of soft idiots like you while you sleep soundly in your bed. "

Paul, I think a bug must have crawled up your other end...

 
At 6/13/2012 5:30 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry G,

anyone who can meet the strength specifications of a given job.

This is so false as to be absurd. Look at the specifications for many military units and you'll see that the attrition rate is fairly high, despite well publicized strength specifications.

you don't need strength to kill others in a combat scenario.


Again, this is silly. As pointed out in the article to which I linked, the minimum pack weight is 60lbs. This means that many people will be carrying upwards of 100lbs. Then you get to walk. In a combat zone you carry everything, when on patrol.

When the shit hits the fan, you get to run. Then you get to carry/drag back your wounded to keep them from getting shot or hurt even more.

Have you ever been in the military? I'm just shocked that you would say something so stupid.

there are a number of armies in the world that have women in the same combat roles as men.

And are far, far less effective.

 
At 6/13/2012 5:32 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

ANY US-issued weaponry... certainly...

what a nitpicker you are... is that gender?


I don't know. Maybe women are more precise, Larry.

Or maybe that you don't even know the weaponry of the U.S. military means you don't know enough to be making decisions about whether or not women are up to whatever task you think they should be entrusted with.


(and just FYI, some of our soldiers prefer AK-47's to the standard issue M-16's because they don't have a tendency to jam up as much, but they're not issued by the U.S. military.)

 
At 6/13/2012 5:34 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"anyone who can meet the strength specifications of a given job."

The military already lets women off with far easier physical training requirements than what the men are expected to achieve.


"you don't need strength to kill others in a combat scenario."

Good lord. That may be the dumbest thing you've ever written here, and that's saying something.

"..there are a number of armies in the world that have women in the same combat roles as men."

Remind me again which is the #1 military on the planet?


Where did you do your basic training, Larry?

 
At 6/13/2012 5:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I'm done..Paul. Go find someone else to fight with.

 
At 6/13/2012 5:46 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Larrykins,

There is no woman in the world who, unaided by steroids, could even begin to come close to a man's upper body strength.

You know, there is a reason that male and female athletes do not compete with each other.

 
At 6/13/2012 5:51 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Where did you do your basic training, Larry?

Probably the Obama Youth Corpse.

 
At 6/13/2012 5:52 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

you are correct Methinks...

and for any job that legitimately requires more strength than _a_ women has then I'd agree.

 
At 6/13/2012 5:54 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I did not serve Methinks.

 
At 6/13/2012 6:00 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Go find someone else to fight with."

Ha. I knew it. You've never spent a day in the military. But from your comfy chair, you (like all liberals), would so thoughtlessly increase the load(and the death-toll) on our troops with nary a moment's hesitation.

 
At 6/13/2012 8:49 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Larry, not only did you not serve, but you also don't understand what it's like to serve in combat. You haven't even done the research.

Do you know how heavy the gear is? Do you know how long and how far and under what conditions they must carry it? Do you have any idea what sort of circumstances soldiers find themselves in on the battlefield? NO. You don't have the first clue. You don't even know as much as I do (and that ain't much), yet you insist that the policy toward women is wrong.

WTH?

 
At 6/13/2012 8:49 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 6/13/2012 9:15 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

whether someone serves or not does not mean they do not know. Consider, for instance, someone whose father was in the military for 20 years and has lived at a number of military installations including Parris Island. Consider also that civilians can also work at active military bases...

There are hundreds of MOS that are performed both in combat and non-combat zones. Even in combat zones there are jobs that do not require great strength - for instance driving convoy equipment or flying a helicopter or .. as a dispatcher.

for the jobs that women CAN DO, they should have the opportunity to do those jobs even in a combat zone just the same as male support personnel do. They should not be excluded solely because it's a combat zone.

you may recall that women have been captured, killed and maimed in the recent combat venues.

keep in mind that many men in the military also can not do what the strongest men can do either.

 
At 6/13/2012 10:14 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry G,

they should have the opportunity to do those jobs even in a combat zone just the same as male support personnel do. They should not be excluded solely because it's a combat zone.

Of course they should. Being in a combat zone means that there is a potential for combat, something women should not be in. Behind the lines support is fine.

And I also noticed you are changing the topic. You are now saying that women can perform many jobs in "combat zones", which is a far cry from putting women in jobs that require killing, with your incredibly stupid "you don't need strength to kill others in a combat scenario" statement.

In fact being strong in a combat situation is one of the most important aspects of being in combat. Not being able to carry your gear, carry it for long distances, and still be able to perform in combat is directly related to how strong a person is. Not too mention you need to be very aggressive in combat scenarios. And you need to not be a distraction for your team mates.

In other words, while women can work in forward deployed areas, they absolutely should not be put in situations where combat is likely, much less in a combat platoon.

 
At 6/13/2012 10:20 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" And I also noticed you are changing the topic. You are now saying that women can perform many jobs in "combat zones", which is a far cry from putting women in jobs that require killing, with your incredibly stupid "you don't need strength to kill others in a combat scenario" statement."

I did slip sideways a bit but not a whole lot.

Not every job in combat requires great strength.

Not every job in combat is an infantry job that requires carrying 100 lbs of gear and I can guarantee you that they do not discharge any male who cannot do that - either.

 
At 6/13/2012 10:30 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry G,

Not every job in combat requires great strength.

This is categorically false. Every patrol taken requires loads of equipment to carry, including food, water, ammo, weapons, and protective equipment. This requires a minimum load of 60 lbs per person in combat.

What you are talking about is support and getting that confused with combat platoons (the mention of combat scenarios). If you want to talk about these support jobs and how women can be in those positions, that's fine. Just don't confuse them with combat positions.

Being in an office querying databases for intelligence or doing logistics to supply combat troops or being in a medical field in a secure area, while being in a combat zone, is very different from being in combat situations. Confusing the two or trying to blur the line isn't very helpful.

 
At 6/13/2012 10:36 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

is the ONLY job in combat - patrol?

come on guy... do you think a combat helicopter pilot or a sniper are in "patrol" roles?

but support roles in combat zones.

you need cooks.... carpool folks...ambulance EMS, etc...

 
At 6/14/2012 1:26 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"and black people ? "

What about them?

 
At 6/14/2012 6:48 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Larry,

Are you implying that your daddy was a military man? And you still don't know enough about the U.S. military to know that it doesn't use Kalashnikov rifles?

One ex is was a marine. Another ex was a paratrooper. I've never lived on a base, but I found out what they were shooting pretty much right away. You managed to supposedly grow up on military bases. As a male child. And still you don't know what kind of rifles the military uses? I just wonder what else you missed to lead you to assert that women ought to be in a combat platoon just 'cuz they wanna fight.

 
At 6/14/2012 7:10 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Methinks.. I just grabbed the AK-47 as a typical weapon... I'm fully aware that it's not US. It was a poor choice of an example, I admit.

If you had "ex"es in the military, then you know what percentage of the armed services are not combat and "support".

and you also know that even in a combat zone heavy with combat missions, there are still a crap-load of people not actually engaged in direct combat even though, in theory, they are supposed to be able to participate if need be.

this would go for anyone wearing a uniform even if their primary job is slinging hash or replacing tires.

"in theory", they should be just as capable of carrying 100lbs in a full combat role as those who currently do that as their primary work.

that's the part where someone might say that a woman could do a support role but if she was forced into a full combat role, she would not be as capable.

and I would concur with that but just point out that the vast majority of male support - also lack "full replacement" capability once they have been out of boot camp for a few years and PT is about as close as they get to replicating that 100lb gear trot...

 
At 6/14/2012 8:09 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Hey denizenofgoo thank you for posting that link to How Feminism Wrecked the U.S. Forest Service...

Damn it! Now I'm going to have to go get that book...:-)

 
At 6/14/2012 8:25 AM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry G,

is the ONLY job in combat - patrol?

come on guy... do you think a combat helicopter pilot or a sniper are in "patrol" roles?


Yes, those are indeed patrol roles. And yes, they should only be filled by men.

but support roles in combat zones.

you need cooks.... carpool folks...ambulance EMS, etc...


I mentioned those. Again, you're confusing "combat zone" with jobs that require you to go kill someone. The latter is what you explicitly started this conversation with, then abruptly switched to the former when shown how stupid your first assertion was.

 
At 6/14/2012 8:57 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Paul, I think a bug must have crawled up your other end"...

Hmmm, larry g have ever considered the idea of pulling out and striving for even a small dose of reality?

 
At 6/14/2012 9:38 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

oh I LIKE your cartoon Juandos!

 
At 6/14/2012 9:41 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

I just grabbed the AK-47 as a typical weapon... I'm fully aware that it's not US.

Of course you are, Larry. Now that I've told you.

 
At 6/14/2012 11:01 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

do you REALLY think as someone who has lived on military bases and worked on military weapons that I did not know?

 
At 6/14/2012 12:32 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

Yeah, I do. You haven't demonstrated a shred of knowledge of the military thus far, though that hasn't stopped you from spouting off.

 
At 6/14/2012 1:31 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

well Paul.. all I can tell you is that I've spent much of my life either living or working on military bases with active uninformed military personnel.

and I can share with you that a good number of active military 10-15 yrs into their service are no longer capable of doing what they did as young men in boot camp yet the military still considers them capable of using a weapon to kill the enemy even if they no longer can trot double time with a 100lb pack.

you guys simply go out of your way to figure out ways that women should be discriminated against...

totally bogus when you look at the great majority of men in the armed who also can not meet the initial physical requirements.

 
At 6/14/2012 3:20 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry G,

all I can tell you is that I've spent much of my life either living or working on military bases with active uninformed military personnel

My dad was a cop. My brother is a cop. I've spent a lot of time with cops. I've spent a lot of time at police stations with my brother and father, so I must totally know about police procedures and the life of cops, right?

No wait, my sister in law is a nurse, as are my two nieces. I've spent a lot of time in and out of hospitals, so I totally know all about the procedures work of doctors, right?

Are you serious with this? Your claim is that you know people who do some job, so you totally know how that job is done and how it should be done? Ha!

you guys simply go out of your way to figure out ways that women should be discriminated against

This isn't some made up way to discriminate against women. Women should not be allowed into combat units because they aren't fit for those positions and for the effect women have on men in those units.

In other words, more of our troops would die, our wars would be longer, and our wars would be less effective... oh, now I see why you want women into combat units. As a good lefty, you want these things to happen.

 
At 6/14/2012 3:31 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Re: women in combat zones:

"you need cooks."

Oh yes. That should be a popular idea.

"Get out in that kitchen, and rattle those pots and pans."

 
At 6/14/2012 3:50 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"that's the part where someone might say that a woman could do a support role but if she was forced into a full combat role, she would not be as capable."

Why would you want anyone in a support role in a combat zone that isn't capable of doing every job?

There is no shortage of men willing and qualified to do the job.

I'm not sure there are many women who actually want to engage in armed combat, or do many of the other dangerous and dirty jobs men do. They are too smart for that.

 
At 6/14/2012 3:50 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Women should not be allowed into combat units because they aren't fit for those positions and for the effect women have on men in those units.

I do believe women are (or were) allowed combat roles in the IDF. There were problems ranging from incensed reactions of male soldiers when female soldiers were hit to Islamic fighters refusing to surrender to female soldiers. There are upsides too. I reject the complaint of romantic involvement. Despite the ban, there were plenty of gays in the military and I'm sure that led to plenty romantic involvement.

Objectively, It's not completely clear cut. But describing tough decisions made in areas that are not totally black and white as sexism is retarded. There are at least as many (if not more - I haven't counted) objective arguments against including women in combat units as there are for including them. Larry screaming "look what the military is doing to women" makes it sound like the military is raping them. Gimme a break.

 
At 6/14/2012 3:53 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"do you REALLY think as someone who has lived on military bases and worked on military weapons that I did not know?"

Based on the many other thing you don't know, yes; I really thought you did not know.

 
At 6/14/2012 3:59 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"well Paul.. all I can tell you is that I've spent much of my life either living or working on military bases with active uninformed military personnel."

And how much active combat did you observe on these military bases?

"and I can share with you that a good number of active military 10-15 yrs into their service are no longer capable of doing what they did as young men in boot camp yet the military still considers them capable of using a weapon to kill the enemy even if they no longer can trot double time with a 100lb pack."

That's why they are on military BASES, Larry.

 
At 6/14/2012 5:28 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" so I must totally know about police procedures and the life of cops, right? "

no more or less than anything else.

what's your point? Do you refrain from commenting on anything you do not have direct experience in?

is that a rule ?

re: " That's why they are on military BASES, Larry"

you have about 1.5 million people in the armed services and "in theory", each one of them is supposed to be able to participate in combat if the circumstance and need arose and common sense will tell you that the vast majority of these folks are likely incapable of meeting the "carry 100 lbs while ducking bullets" standard yet the military does not oust them for that deficiency.

In fact, the military desperately needs qualified workers for all the other things that go into supporting the boots on the ground.

while I do AGREE (got that) that ANY individual no matter what their sexual accouterments might be who is physically smaller in stature than more well endowed specimens...it takes more than a brainless strong man to prevail over the enemy in combat.

It's an important ability but by far not the the only one.

A small..physically weak but exceptionally smart platoon leader can save more lives than others with physical advantages.

the "you must be physically superior" idea is an artifact from a time when the military was considered (like many other occupations)... "mans work".

 
At 6/14/2012 5:31 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Objectively, It's not completely clear cut. But describing tough decisions made in areas that are not totally black and white as sexism is retarded. There are at least as many (if not more - I haven't counted) objective arguments against including women in combat units as there are for including them. Larry screaming "look what the military is doing to women" makes it sound like the military is raping them. Gimme a break. "

I never said that.

I said the mindset that women are unqualified because of their physical size is bogus as there are many other (as you point out) important aspects and not every superb physical male specimen is going to have ALL the important qualifications.

In fact, the military don't want you if you are big and strong but dumb.

 
At 6/14/2012 9:14 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You THINK, Hydra? Do you have some numbers to back that up or are you speaking from your own experience as a young lady just starting out in the world?

================================

I recall reading it somewhere, but I do not have the citation.

You have a citation that says I'm wrong, or do you just enjoy baseless personal attacks?

 
At 6/14/2012 11:42 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Methinks

"And there are surely some men who would love to give birth. "

It apparently happens quite frequently.

:)

 
At 6/14/2012 11:50 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Methinks: "You THINK, Hydra? Do you have some numbers to back that up or are you speaking from your own experience as a young lady just starting out in the world?"

================================

Hydra: "I recall reading it somewhere, but I do not have the citation."

You will really have to do better than "I think" to be taken seriously on this blog. You should know that by now.

"You have a citation that says I'm wrong..."

No, but the burden of proof is on you.

"...or do you just enjoy
baseless personal attacks?
"

Well, you DO create a target rich environment.

 
At 6/15/2012 9:52 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Burden of proof is on the endless list of concepts Hydra struggles with, Ron H.

I will never forgive you for the link to that video :)

 
At 6/15/2012 1:29 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Methinks: "I will never forgive you for the link to that video :)"

Glad you liked it. :)

I guess there is one actual case of a "man" giving birth, although I can't imagine why any man would want to.

 
At 6/16/2012 12:17 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"totally bogus when you look at the great majority of men in the armed who also can not meet the initial physical requirements"...

Ahhh larry, larry, larry, its NOT the initial requirements that matter, its the FINAL requirements that tell the tale...

It may strike you as offensive when there is a blanket statement made about women's abilities as potential frontline soldiers but when you're dealing with the facts of having a women hump a 70+ lb ruck with three days supply and carry her end of the log on a combat patrol then its life dependent to consider the realities...

 
At 6/16/2012 7:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"A small..physically weak but exceptionally smart platoon leader can save more lives than others with physical advantages."

Do you have any basis for that assertion, or does it just seem intuitive to you?

Actually, a really smart platoon leader of any size or strength could save more lives by keeping his or her troops away from dangerous situations, including areas where there might be actual combat.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home