Reverse racism/Affirmative Action aspects to Obamacare

Annoyed wrote:

And what of some male draftee who "doesn't show interest" in combat? Will he be given a pass excusing him from combat?

And finally, let's discuss the draft itself. If women want to claim equality with men as far as the military goes, if men are subject to the draft, shouldn't women be also.

Again, it's either identical treatment for all comers or it's discrimination. No exceptions, no excuses.  It's either equal or it isn't.

You're absolutely right in everything you say here. If women want to serve in combat they should have to make the same minimum requirements as the men do. I don't care if it's test scores, pullups, height, or how fast you run the mile. And you're right about registering for the draft as well. Actually, now that women are allowed in combat, making males register for the draft but not females is sexual discrimination against men.

Annoyed wrote:

Bandit wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

How can you not see the favoritism there?

Because there isn't any. Females have one standard, males another. Regardless, you fail to make the standard for your gender, buh-bye. It has been this way since long before you were born.

How can that not be considered preferential treatment? If you want equality, you can't have different standards.

Thank you very much for a very effective end of this discussion.

Of course it is preferential treatment, and he knows it too, but will not admit it. Anymore then he'll admit that hiring a black instead of an equal, or even superior, white job candidate simply because of affirmative action is preferential treatment. It's a world of double standards, feminists, blacks, etc all demanding "equal" rights while setting up double standards to let them have their cake and eat it too.

Bandit wrote:

But women are not stupid. Most will avoid combat arms. Not because they cannot physically handle it. Not because they fear combat. Simply because they'll never get promoted. Heck, even in Support and Service Support, there are too many males competing for the same jobs. With the continued downsizing of the forces, there are only so many jobs to have.

You really don't understand the concept of "equal" do you? I bet you drove your math teachers to drink. In the classroom.

All other things being equal, such as performance reviews and such, if there are 10 people in a pool being considered for a promotion, each PERSON has a 1 in 10 chance of getting the promotion. if 9 of those people are men and 1 is a woman, there is a 9 out of 10 chance that the promotee will be a man. That's equality. By definition. Each PERSON has the exact same chance as any of the other 9.

Or do you think that the woman should be given preferential treatment to increase her odds? That is not equality, that is favoritism.

Annoyed wrote:

You really don't understand the concept of "equal" do you? I bet you drove your math teachers to drink. In the classroom.

All other things being equal, such as performance reviews and such, if there are 10 people in a pool being considered for a promotion, each PERSON has a 1 in 10 chance of getting the promotion. if 9 of those people are men and 1 is a woman, there is a 9 out of 10 chance that the promotee will be a man. That's equality. By definition. Each PERSON has the exact same chance as any of the other 9.

Or do you think that the woman should be given preferential treatment to increase her odds? That is not equality, that is favoritism.

I do understand the concept of equal. I also understand the definition of sexism, and sexist behavior. By what method of reasoning is 9 men to 1 female "equal". Did you ever pass basic math or just spend that time hating women?

Why not try 5 men and 5 women? Oh yeah, because then men lose the advantage.

And of course, if the woman should beat the 9-1 odds against her, obviously that's preferential treatment. Is that your assessment?

Annoyed wrote:

How can that not be considered preferential treatment? If you want equality, you can't have different standards.

Because Anatomically and Physiologically males and females are NOT equal. Take a male and female of the same age and height. The military simply isn't going to allow the female to weigh the same as a male. Is that favoritism for males? Is that showing males preferential treatment?

If that isn't simple enough for you to grasp, why do you suppose they separate males and females when competing in the Olympics for the same events?

Bandit wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

You really don't understand the concept of "equal" do you? I bet you drove your math teachers to drink. In the classroom.

All other things being equal, such as performance reviews and such, if there are 10 people in a pool being considered for a promotion, each PERSON has a 1 in 10 chance of getting the promotion. if 9 of those people are men and 1 is a woman, there is a 9 out of 10 chance that the promotee will be a man. That's equality. By definition. Each PERSON has the exact same chance as any of the other 9.

Or do you think that the woman should be given preferential treatment to increase her odds? That is not equality, that is favoritism.

I do understand the concept of equal. I also understand the definition of sexism, and sexist behavior. By what method of reasoning is 9 men to 1 female "equal". Did you ever pass basic math or just spend that time hating women?

Why not try 5 men and 5 women? Oh yeah, because then men lose the advantage.

And of course, if the woman should beat the 9-1 odds against her, obviously that's preferential treatment. Is that your assessment?

What, you intend to promote the entire pool of possible promotees?

If the pool of possible promotees is made up of 5 men & 5 women, then it is reasonable to assume that an equal number of each will be promoted, assuming an even number of promotions exist. If it's an odd number, than one or the other will by mathematical necessity be fewer.

Bandit wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

How can that not be considered preferential treatment? If you want equality, you can't have different standards.

Because Anatomically and Physiologically males and females are NOT equal. Take a male and female of the same age and height. The military simply isn't going to allow the female to weigh the same as a male. Is that favoritism for males? Is that showing males preferential treatment?

If that isn't simple enough for you to grasp, why do you suppose they separate males and females when competing in the Olympics for the same events?

Because Anatomically and Physiologically males and females are NOT equal.

That statement covers it pretty well. They are not equal, and anyone who pretends that they are has their head stuck in the sand, ignoring reality. Not a trait I like to see in any organization, let alone the military or any other organization where lives hang in the balance. You can't make something into something its not simply by wishing it were so.

Annoyed wrote:

Because Anatomically and Physiologically males and females are NOT equal.

That statement covers it pretty well.

And this has what to do with females serving in combat or combat arms? What happened to your alleged preferential treatment, favoritism and double standards? I hope this is not the first time you noticed there are differences between males and females.

Annoyed wrote:

You really don't understand the concept of "equal" do you? I bet you drove your math teachers to drink. In the classroom.

All other things being equal, such as performance reviews and such, if there are 10 people in a pool being considered for a promotion, each PERSON has a 1 in 10 chance of getting the promotion. if 9 of those people are men and 1 is a woman, there is a 9 out of 10 chance that the promotee will be a man. That's equality. By definition. Each PERSON has the exact same chance as any of the other 9.

Or do you think that the woman should be given preferential treatment to increase her odds? That is not equality, that is favoritism.

And that's the problem right there, Bandit, and all liberals, don't see them as individual people. Each of them are not viewed as a PERSON, they are viewed as a women, a black guy, a gay, a gay Jewish Mexican, a straight white male (aka racist sexist scum), etc. And because they all fit into different categories, they are not considered equal by that type of mind. And because, in these peoples minds, all these types are inherently inferior to straight white men, they have to "level the playing field" in order for things to be "equal". Actually, it's very communist in its application. They feel we must artificially raise up the under class/under achievers while at the same time punitively lower the upper class/straight white men in order to make us all "equal". This actually points out how these people are the biggest racists/sexists of all, for they feel they must discriminate against straight white males for the betterment of these other groups that they feel are unable to achieve success on their own merit.

Bandit wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

Because Anatomically and Physiologically males and females are NOT equal.

That statement covers it pretty well.

And this has what to do with females serving in combat or combat arms? What happened to your alleged preferential treatment, favoritism and double standards? I hope this is not the first time you noticed there are differences between males and females.

Quite a bit. If a female (or a male for that matter) cannot pass the same tests and carry out the same tasks as any other member of whatever group she or he is in, that person has no business being in that group. Period. Artificially lowering the requirements of a group to allow those who cannot meet the accepted requirements to be in that group is harmful to that group. You yourself, during the course of this discussion have stated that women are held to lower standards than men are.

Quote :

Females have one standard, males another.

So you know damned well that they are lowering the bar to allow women to move into roles that they are not qualified for. If you want to ignore that fact in order to pursue an agenda, fine, so be it. But understand that you are deluding yourself.

Annoyed wrote:

Quite a bit. If a female (or a male for that matter) cannot pass the same tests and carry out the same tasks as any other member of whatever group she or he is in, that person has no business being in that group. Period. Artificially lowering the requirements of a group to allow those who cannot meet the accepted requirements to be in that group is harmful to that group. You yourself, during the course of this discussion have stated that women are held to lower standards than men are.

Quote :

Females have one standard, males another.

So you know damned well that they are lowering the bar to allow women to move into roles that they are not qualified for. If you want to ignore that fact in order to pursue an agenda, fine, so be it. But understand that you are deluding yourself.

As I stated at the beginning of this discussion, you don't know what you're talking about. Try this: You have no clue what you are talking about. Does that make it any clearer for you? I never stated females are held to a LOWER standard than males. That is your opinion. However, it is NOT a fact.

Here's a few facts about this topic you also know nothing about.

It is December of 1941, and America is again at War. Having learned its lesson from the first World War, Congress allows females to served in the Armed Forces, but only during war, and only in non-combat military jobs. But that won't work this time. Women had already left to replace the men in factories, to support the war effort. So we need something new, and fast.

The answer was the creation of the Women's Armed Forces in 1942. The goal was to replace the men in every service. To do that, started with physical training. Here is the Physical Training manual for a WAC from 1943:

Physical Training for WAC's 1943

Some interesting excerpts:

Quote :

None of your duties will be beyond the capacity of a woman in
fit condition. But nearly all military duties will be beyond the ability of a woman who lacks strength, who tires easily, whose mind and body do not work in swift accord, who is constantly prey to illness and moods.

Quote :

Men are naturally endowed with greater physical strength than women. But women at war, abroad and at home, are proving daily that woman's strength, properly trained and developed, is ample to perform hundreds of vital wartime tasks.

And thus, fitness standards for females were born. Do they need to be as strong as males? No, they do not. They never did. Now all this is well before Affirmative Action, but you don't care.

Annoyed wrote:

Artificially lowering the requirements of a group to allow those who cannot meet the accepted requirements to be in that group is harmful to that group.

You speak of groups, but will not allow females to be a group.

Annoyed wrote:

If a woman can meet the same standards as men do, I have no problem with their wishing to serve.

That is obviously a lie, and you damn well know it.

Annoyed wrote:

Thank you very much for a very effective end of this discussion.

This thread is supposed to be about Affirmative Action in Obamacare. Again, deception by you. I told you if you wished to discuss Affirmative Action, start a new thread and I'd meet you there. I still stand by what I said.

Up to you.

Bandit wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

Thank you very much for a very effective end of this discussion.

This thread is supposed to be about Affirmative Action in Obamacare. Again, deception by you. I told you if you wished to discuss Affirmative Action, start a new thread and I'd meet you there. I still stand by what I said.

Up to you.

This discussion is relevant to the original topic as my main assertion still applies:
Affirmative action is detrimental to whatever group or organization it is applied to. I doesn't matter if we're talking about military, fire/police, medical personal or dog catchers. And I don't care if you're talking about women, minorities or artichokes as the favored subset of the population either. That basic truth still applies.

Any time you lower admission standards to a particular group in order increase the numbers of a favored subset of the population allowed into that group, the skill level of that group is lowered, harming that group as a whole.

Suppose you have a Dollar. This dollar is made up of 10 rolls of pennies, rolled in traditional brown paper wrappers, with each roll of pennies containing 10 pennies.

Now, suppose you have this group of rolls of pennies who are rolled in yellow paper. But these yellow rolls are not of the same value; for some reason, each of these yellow rolls contains only 8 pennies, rather than ten.

Are you ok with replacing some of your brown penny rolls with the yellow ones? Change the rules so that the yellow rolls that contain 8 pennies are allowed to be part of the group of penny rolls that make up the dollar? So, you let 2 yellow rolls be part of your dollar, even though they don't meet the same standards as the brown rolls?
You end up with 96 cents, not a dollar. Surely, you can see that, right?

It's the same principal.

Let's put it another way. You strongly advocate affirmative action.

Suppose you have a heart attack, and you have a choice of two doctors to supervise your treatment. One doctor went through the standard path to attain her education & certifications as a doctor, and the other was part of a "special group", that has had the standards lowered for them along the way, in order to get more members of that special group into the profession of Doctors.

Which doctor are you going to pick?

I'm not a sexist here; you'll notice that I used the gender specific term "her education" above. That is because my own primary care physician is a woman. I've been going to her for roughly 30 years, and I've never had a problem with her services. She's not perfect, (no human is) but she's honest enough to admit she made a mistake the one or two times she was in error about something.

Prior to choosing her, I looked at her records as well as that of several other doctors I was considering, and I saw no favoritism extended towards her at all. Other things being equal, I made my choice based on convenience of her office location. 30 years later, I have no cause regret my choice.

No, I'm not a racist, sexist, or any other sort of "ist". But I am opposed to affirmative action in any form, because it allows those who would otherwise be unqualified for a particular profession to join that profession anyway, which harms that profession.

Is that like a pride of lions you have one that does not hunt very well hurts the group as a whole?

Annoyed wrote:

No, I'm not a racist, sexist, or any other sort of "ist". But I am opposed to affirmative action in any form, because it allows those who would otherwise be unqualified for a particular profession to join that profession anyway, which harms that profession.

It also discriminates against the person who was qualified but not hired to make way for the unqualified minority.