Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[Llamalandia]

Of course I can't prove that anyone has actually died as a direct result of being less fit there simply isn't enough data available especially from a war zone. But that in no way means I've somehow lost the argument. The whole point is that army sets standards for a reason, because they are necessary for a soldier to function and in extreme cases even survive in a war zone. SO for what reason would the army set seperate standards for men and women when either may find themselves in a combat (or even non-combat) role which would require them to utilize a certain amount of strength or retreat as quickly as possible when there position is about to be over run? How does that make any logical sense.

And also aside from this I'm still waiting to hear what well known feminists I should be listening to according to your standards.

That's exactly what it means. When you make a claim that has absolutely zero evidence to back it, then the claim can be dismissed and the argument can be recognized for the complete and utter bullshit that it really is. Particularly because the Pentagon is actively revising the military's standards to find a uniform level of physical ability that all soldiers must meet, that assesses male and female recruits in an unbiased manner.

And I'll say this for the last time: use Google. I'm not going to hold you hand, so show a bit of initiative, show a bit of critical thinking, and go educate yourself.

I'm not going to waste my time "educating myself" about feminists if you won't even name one. I mean, your the one who claims that the rest of us are ignorant and need to what was it not buy into so much right wing propaganda or something.

Also I gave you an example of when a women was involved in "frontline" type combat as an MP (and in her case acquitted herself quite honorably. this proves that though women aren't yet offically allowed on the frontline (or more specifically allowed in combat mos's) they still find themselves fighting in frontline engagements. Therefor because any soldier can theoretically at anytime find themselves essentially on the frontline and given that fitness standards are set accordingly I ask again why in the heck men and women would ever be held to two different standards? (and even if I were to somehow concede this point about the frontline there is still the issue of non-combat roles requiring for instance upper body strength, lifting large objects and whatnot.

Also there's this:

Marines Postpone Pull-Up Requirement for Female Recruits

After more than half fail test, the Marine Corps struggles to find fair fitness test for women pursuing combat jobs

More than half of the women in the Marines’ boot camp cannot complete three pull-ups, the minimum requirement for the New Year. The issue has forced the Marine Corps to delay the prerequisite as it tries to integrate thousands of women into combat roles by 2016, the Associated Press reports.

The delay has prompted some to question whether women have the physical strength to take on military jobs traditionally reserved for men. The Marines argue that pull-ups require the same muscular strength necessary to carry munitions, climb walls and perform other common military tasks.

But Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to “continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed,” Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, told the Associated Press on Thursday.

For now, women will be able to choose whether their upper-body strength is graded on the pull-ups or a 15-second-minimum flexed-arm hang.

http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/marines-postpone-pull-up-requirement-for-female-recruits/

[Ardoki]

So a woman's place in the world is in the bathroom?

Interesting...

well I was thinking more like the kitchens, the home with the children, nursing, maybe teaching... that sort of stuff. And maybe working the factories if all the men get drafted to war...

You continue to amaze me.

[Ostroeuropa]

The 5th rule of feminism: Explain enthusiastically that you want more males in the feminist movement to hear their perspective.
6th rule: Any male who doesn't agree with established perspectives on gender is a misogynist.
7th rule: Any institution or organization that doesn't make attempts to make minorities feel welcomed in it's institutions is engaging in discriminatory behaviour, and blaming the minority for simply not applying is unacceptable.
8th rule: You are encouraged to occasionally wonder why men aren't signing up to feminism in equal numbers to women. After thinking about it for a while, you must conclude it is the mens fault.

[Camicon]

She was killed by a situation in which her physical capability could not have affected the outcome. She died from complications to a head wound, sustained via the blast from an RPG, which she occurred while she was driving a Jeep at high speeds (successfully avoiding the gunfire of their attackers). All things being equal, a man would have done no better than she did. (1)
I do not oppose equal standards. I have never opposed equal standards. Why would you think that I do? (2)

1) Physical fitness actually increases the chances of one surviving wounds in general.
2) See the underlined;

It absolutely does matter. You're upset that women do not need to meet the physical requirements that men do, in the context that it compromises the security of military forces in situations where physical ability becomes paramount and where physically less-able women are present. Those situations are found exclusively on the front lines, where women do not serve. Unless such a situation occurs, then your argument is a hypothetical, and bears no merit. And the discordance of having two separate fitness standards is exactly why the Pentagon is creating a single standard which all soldiers, male or female, must adhere to.

Seeing as how such is already occurring and women held to a lower standard of physical fitness are serving in the "frontline" (In this instance conflict zones wherein a 'frontline' is very fluid due to the nature of counter-insurgency operations), you're argument over the point is confusing.
I am also aware of no Pentagon movement towards standardizing all fitness requirements.

And from the post of mine that you quoted and responded to:

*snip*
Name a single woman that was killed on the front lines, because they were not as physically able as their male fellows.
*snip*

Unless such a situation has occurred, then the argument is meaningless, because the events by which is it supported have not happened.

She was killed by a situation in which her physical capability could not have affected the outcome. She died from complications to a head wound, sustained via the blast from an RPG, which she occurred while she was driving a Jeep at high speeds (successfully avoiding the gunfire of their attackers). All things being equal, a man would have done no better than she did.
I do not oppose equal standards. I have never opposed equal standards. Why would you think that I do?

If you support affirmative action you necessarily are opposed to equal standards.

To expand, affirmative action is a policy meant to offset the systemic bias against women/minorities/etc.

Equal standards are equal for everyone regardless of any "systemic bias" which may or may not exist and may or may not have disadvantage any particular group of persons. Equal means equal. equality means that if men do 35 pushups then so do women, even if women are systematically excluded from gyms.

You do not understand affirmative action. As things stand, if the only requirement for a position is that the applicant be able to do thirty-five push ups, then a white male is more likely to receive the position over a non-white or non-male applicant, even if they are exactly the same in every other way. In the real world, more qualified non-white or non-male candidates are passed over in favour of less qualified white males. Systemic bias forces non-white non-male individuals to outperform their white-male counterparts in order to receive equal treatment in/for the same position. Affirmative action combats this discrimination.

[Camicon]

That's exactly what it means. When you make a claim that has absolutely zero evidence to back it, then the claim can be dismissed and the argument can be recognized for the complete and utter bullshit that it really is. Particularly because the Pentagon is actively revising the military's standards to find a uniform level of physical ability that all soldiers must meet, that assesses male and female recruits in an unbiased manner.

And I'll say this for the last time: use Google. I'm not going to hold you hand, so show a bit of initiative, show a bit of critical thinking, and go educate yourself.

I'm not going to waste my time "educating myself" about feminists if you won't even name one. I mean, your the one who claims that the rest of us are ignorant and need to what was it not buy into so much right wing propaganda or something.

Also I gave you an example of when a women was involved in "frontline" type combat as an MP (and in her case acquitted herself quite honorably. this proves that though women aren't yet offically allowed on the frontline (or more specifically allowed in combat mos's) they still find themselves fighting in frontline engagements. Therefor because any soldier can theoretically at anytime find themselves essentially on the frontline and given that fitness standards are set accordingly I ask again why in the heck men and women would ever be held to two different standards? (and even if I were to somehow concede this point about the frontline there is still the issue of non-combat roles requiring for instance upper body strength, lifting large objects and whatnot.

Also there's this:

Marines Postpone Pull-Up Requirement for Female Recruits

After more than half fail test, the Marine Corps struggles to find fair fitness test for women pursuing combat jobs

More than half of the women in the Marines’ boot camp cannot complete three pull-ups, the minimum requirement for the New Year. The issue has forced the Marine Corps to delay the prerequisite as it tries to integrate thousands of women into combat roles by 2016, the Associated Press reports.

The delay has prompted some to question whether women have the physical strength to take on military jobs traditionally reserved for men. The Marines argue that pull-ups require the same muscular strength necessary to carry munitions, climb walls and perform other common military tasks.

But Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to “continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed,” Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, told the Associated Press on Thursday.

For now, women will be able to choose whether their upper-body strength is graded on the pull-ups or a 15-second-minimum flexed-arm hang.

http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/marines-postpone-pull-up-requirement-for-female-recruits/

I have never said that men and women should be held to different standards.

And pull-ups test only upper body strength. Carrying munitions, climbing, and "other common military tasks" no doubt engage the entire body. Forcing women to meet a three pull-up requirement, when doing so does not accurately reflect their ability to do their job, is discriminatory.

[Llamalandia]

More importantly when is the pay gap in porn going to be addressed after all porn actresses make more than there male counterparts on average. I guess the lilly ledbetter fair pay act just ain't gettin it done for these guys huh?

[Betoni]

I'm not going to waste my time "educating myself" about feminists if you won't even name one. I mean, your the one who claims that the rest of us are ignorant and need to what was it not buy into so much right wing propaganda or something.

I already gave you a couple of wikipedia links.

[Occupied Deutschland]

1) Physical fitness actually increases the chances of one surviving wounds in general.
2) See the underlined;

Seeing as how such is already occurring and women held to a lower standard of physical fitness are serving in the "frontline" (In this instance conflict zones wherein a 'frontline' is very fluid due to the nature of counter-insurgency operations), you're argument over the point is confusing.
I am also aware of no Pentagon movement towards standardizing all fitness requirements.

And from the post of mine that you quoted and responded to:

*snip*
Name a single woman that was killed on the front lines, because they were not as physically able as their male fellows.
*snip*

Unless such a situation has occurred, then the argument is meaningless, because the events by which is it supported have not happened.

So fuck equality because you don't think inequality is causing a problem yet?

And you wonder why people are critical of self-ascribed 'feminists'?

The standard of proof you demand is unmeetable, as we don't exactly receive information from the person that is killed on how they felt just before getting killed, do we?

We do however know women are serving in combat roles in positions which don't, and hold no prospective or plan from the Pentagon I can find, to bring their physical fitness standards up to those required of their male counterparts.

Again, you're argument over this point is confusing on a principal level if you believe yourself a feminist, and on an intellectual level if you refuse to accept generalizations as per the effects of physical fitness on combat performance applied to men also being applied to women. There is literally no way you can be arguing with us consistent with the 'equalism' philosophy you claim feminism is synonymous with.

[Jeckland]

So a woman's place in the world is in the bathroom?

Interesting...

well I was thinking more like the kitchens, the home with the children, nursing, maybe teaching... that sort of stuff. And maybe working the factories if all the men get drafted to war...

Right. Whilst I think this view is backward and plain wrong, I'll give you a chance. Explain why.

[Llamalandia]

I'm not going to waste my time "educating myself" about feminists if you won't even name one. I mean, your the one who claims that the rest of us are ignorant and need to what was it not buy into so much right wing propaganda or something.

Also I gave you an example of when a women was involved in "frontline" type combat as an MP (and in her case acquitted herself quite honorably. this proves that though women aren't yet offically allowed on the frontline (or more specifically allowed in combat mos's) they still find themselves fighting in frontline engagements. Therefor because any soldier can theoretically at anytime find themselves essentially on the frontline and given that fitness standards are set accordingly I ask again why in the heck men and women would ever be held to two different standards? (and even if I were to somehow concede this point about the frontline there is still the issue of non-combat roles requiring for instance upper body strength, lifting large objects and whatnot.

Also there's this:



http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/marines-postpone-pull-up-requirement-for-female-recruits/

I have never said that men and women should be held to different standards.

And pull-ups test only upper body strength. Carrying munitions, climbing, and "other common military tasks" no doubt engage the entire body. Forcing women to meet a three pull-up requirement, when doing so does not accurately reflect their ability to do their job, is discriminatory.

You aren't opposed to affirmative action. This is in essence the military's version of affirmative action. Hence i fail to see how you be ok with affirmative action and yet not allow differential standards in the military?

Also the pullup test is only discriminatory against people (regardless of gender) who can't do three pullups. There men who can't and women who can and vice versa. That's not inherently discriminatory against women. And obviously the marine corps disagrees with you (though they have also likely been forced by political pressure to allow women who don't meet the standard in anyway).

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'm not going to waste my time "educating myself" about feminists if you won't even name one. I mean, your the one who claims that the rest of us are ignorant and need to what was it not buy into so much right wing propaganda or something.

Also I gave you an example of when a women was involved in "frontline" type combat as an MP (and in her case acquitted herself quite honorably. this proves that though women aren't yet offically allowed on the frontline (or more specifically allowed in combat mos's) they still find themselves fighting in frontline engagements. Therefor because any soldier can theoretically at anytime find themselves essentially on the frontline and given that fitness standards are set accordingly I ask again why in the heck men and women would ever be held to two different standards? (and even if I were to somehow concede this point about the frontline there is still the issue of non-combat roles requiring for instance upper body strength, lifting large objects and whatnot.

Also there's this:



http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/marines-postpone-pull-up-requirement-for-female-recruits/

I have never said that men and women should be held to different standards.

And pull-ups test only upper body strength. Carrying munitions, climbing, and "other common military tasks" no doubt engage the entire body. Forcing women to meet a three pull-up requirement, when doing so does not accurately reflect their ability to do their job, is discriminatory.

THAT'S THE GODDAMNED POINT.

It's discriminatory towards men too.

Turns out, military service desires upper-body strength. It's almost like one might have to carry heavy objects or something!
Edit: Or, to make a more relevant note, hold up their own bodyweight at some point.

Fuck me this is almost sad.

Edit: It's also frustrating that you, as one who has never said men and women should be held to different standards, you seem to have such a large problem with people advocating men and women not be held to different standards.

[Ardoki]

well I was thinking more like the kitchens, the home with the children, nursing, maybe teaching... that sort of stuff. And maybe working the factories if all the men get drafted to war...

Right. Whilst I think this view is backward and plain wrong, I'll give you a chance. Explain why.

I second that, Kefka please explain.

[Ashyaria]

Hopefully, no.

why hopefully?
are you too dense to think that women don't deserve the same rights as men?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not going to waste my time "educating myself" about feminists if you won't even name one. I mean, your the one who claims that the rest of us are ignorant and need to what was it not buy into so much right wing propaganda or something.

I already gave you a couple of wikipedia links.

When in doubt, snow them in. This isn't how debating works. Find the examples. Don't just demand we wander off to read your bullshit, then tell us to go back to it if we havn't understood yet.
The feminists believe either you are one of them, or you should be continuously reading their propoganda until your mind fucking breaks.
Explains their behaviour frankly.
I wonder how many of them went completely nuts and started throwing shit at the walls after the 50th 1000 page manual on patriarchy and how it's totes a real thing before deciding to just let the nice feminist cult leader do all their thinking for them.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not going to waste my time "educating myself" about feminists if you won't even name one. I mean, your the one who claims that the rest of us are ignorant and need to what was it not buy into so much right wing propaganda or something.

Also I gave you an example of when a women was involved in "frontline" type combat as an MP (and in her case acquitted herself quite honorably. this proves that though women aren't yet offically allowed on the frontline (or more specifically allowed in combat mos's) they still find themselves fighting in frontline engagements. Therefor because any soldier can theoretically at anytime find themselves essentially on the frontline and given that fitness standards are set accordingly I ask again why in the heck men and women would ever be held to two different standards? (and even if I were to somehow concede this point about the frontline there is still the issue of non-combat roles requiring for instance upper body strength, lifting large objects and whatnot.

Also there's this:



http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/marines-postpone-pull-up-requirement-for-female-recruits/

I have never said that men and women should be held to different standards.

And pull-ups test only upper body strength. Carrying munitions, climbing, and "other common military tasks" no doubt engage the entire body. Forcing women to meet a three pull-up requirement, when doing so does not accurately reflect their ability to do their job, is discriminatory.

Jesus Christ.
You are one of THEM aren't you.
How is it discrimination to demand three pull ups. Because they can't do it?
Well fuck me, the army is discriminating against me because I can't do any pull ups. Can I have a job?

[Llamalandia]

I'm not going to waste my time "educating myself" about feminists if you won't even name one. I mean, your the one who claims that the rest of us are ignorant and need to what was it not buy into so much right wing propaganda or something.

I already gave you a couple of wikipedia links.

My bad kinda, though i was think a more narrowed list of only true feminists, that link on wikipedia includes all feminist and includes Anita Sarkeesian who I know for a fact isn't a feminist but just some internet media feminazi who loves to talk about how videogames "created an environment which normalizes violence against women." That's a freaking load of crap.

[Ostroeuropa]

I already gave you a couple of wikipedia links.

My bad kinda, though i was think a more narrowed list of only true feminists, that link on wikipedia includes all feminist and includes Anita Sarkeesian who I know for a fact isn't a feminist but just some internet media feminazi who loves to talk about how videogames "created an environment which normalizes violence against women." That's a freaking load of crap.

She isn't even that.
She's a con artist.
It further typifies the cultish behaviour of feminists.

I can speak the lingo. I could totally blow smoke up their ass if I wanted to. And they'd throw money at me just for saying complete bullshit on a video upload.
It's a money making scheme.

Some days I think about doing it too.
Fuck it, I'll go upload some feminist claptrap and rake in the donations. Maybe that's the idea.
A new world order of people deluded enough to believe this shit, and everyone else on the top going "Yeh, patriarchy. Sure. Wheres the weekly tithe."

[Llamalandia]

My bad kinda, though i was think a more narrowed list of only true feminists, that link on wikipedia includes all feminist and includes Anita Sarkeesian who I know for a fact isn't a feminist but just some internet media feminazi who loves to talk about how videogames "created an environment which normalizes violence against women." That's a freaking load of crap.

She isn't even that.
She's a con artist.
It further typifies the cultish behaviour of feminists.

I can speak the lingo. I could totally blow smoke up their ass if I wanted to. And they'd throw money at me just for saying complete bullshit on a video upload.
It's a money making scheme.

Some days I think about doing it too.
Fuck it, I'll go upload some feminist claptrap and rake in the donations.

Yeah, but seriously I think that would be rather immoral, even if everyone who donates to you is just an ignorant follower, it still somehow would seem to me to be morally wrong to take advantage of them fro personal enrichment.

[Ostroeuropa]

She isn't even that.
She's a con artist.
It further typifies the cultish behaviour of feminists.

I can speak the lingo. I could totally blow smoke up their ass if I wanted to. And they'd throw money at me just for saying complete bullshit on a video upload.
It's a money making scheme.

Some days I think about doing it too.
Fuck it, I'll go upload some feminist claptrap and rake in the donations.

Yeah, but seriously I think that would be rather immoral, even if everyone who donates to you is just an ignorant follower, it still somehow would seem to me to be morally wrong to take advantage of them fro personal enrichment.

That's the only thing preventing me. It didn't however, prevent Sarkeesian or many other feminists.

[Llamalandia]

I already gave you a couple of wikipedia links.

When in doubt, snow them in. This isn't how debating works. Find the examples. Don't just demand we wander off to read your bullshit, then tell us to go back to it if we havn't understood yet.
The feminists believe either you are one of them, or you should be continuously reading their propoganda until your mind fucking breaks.
Explains their behaviour frankly.
I wonder how many of them went completely nuts and started throwing shit at the walls after the 50th 1000 page manual on patriarchy and how it's totes a real thing before deciding to just let the nice feminist cult leader do all their thinking for them.

Yeah, i was about to go through that list until i saw Anita at the bottom. It's just a list of all feminists anyway. Sure some of the older ones were legit but really I haven't encountered many reasonable 3rd wave feminists ever.

It's too bad though that their energies aren'tfocused on real feminist issues like voting rights for women in the middle east, you gotta be a pretty big misogynist not to support that.

[Betoni]

I already gave you a couple of wikipedia links.

When in doubt, snow them in. This isn't how debating works. Find the examples. Don't just demand we wander off to read your bullshit, then tell us to go back to it if we havn't understood yet.
The feminists believe either you are one of them, or you should be continuously reading their propoganda until your mind fucking breaks.
Explains their behaviour frankly.
I wonder how many of them went completely nuts and started throwing shit at the walls after the 50th 1000 page manual on patriarchy and how it's totes a real thing before deciding to just let the nice feminist cult leader do all their thinking for them.

I'm not the one qualifying feminists in to "true" and "false". In fact the OP failed to explain the difference between the two and wen't on how they can't find any "true" feminists. I merely provided some examples of organizations and individuals who identify themselves as feminists. I have no idea what you are rambling about.

[Ostroeuropa]

When in doubt, snow them in. This isn't how debating works. Find the examples. Don't just demand we wander off to read your bullshit, then tell us to go back to it if we havn't understood yet.
The feminists believe either you are one of them, or you should be continuously reading their propoganda until your mind fucking breaks.
Explains their behaviour frankly.
I wonder how many of them went completely nuts and started throwing shit at the walls after the 50th 1000 page manual on patriarchy and how it's totes a real thing before deciding to just let the nice feminist cult leader do all their thinking for them.

I'm not the one qualifying feminists in to "true" and "false". In fact the OP failed to explain the difference between the two and wen't on how they can't find any "true" feminists. I merely provided some examples of organizations and individuals who identify themselves as feminists. I have no idea what you are rambling about.

When a feminist argues for male genocide, are they being a feminist in your opinion? They identify as feminist.

[Camicon]

So fuck equality because you don't think inequality is causing a problem yet?

And you wonder why people are critical of self-ascribed 'feminists'?

The standard of proof you demand is unmeetable, as we don't exactly receive information from the person that is killed on how they felt just before getting killed, do we?

We do however know women are serving in combat roles in positions which don't, and hold no prospective or plan from the Pentagon I can find, to bring their physical fitness standards up to those required of their male counterparts.

Again, you're argument over this point is confusing on a principal level if you believe yourself a feminist, and on an intellectual level if you refuse to accept generalizations as per the effects of physical fitness on combat performance applied to men also being applied to women. There is literally no way you can be arguing with us consistent with the 'equalism' philosophy you claim feminism is synonymous with.

The argument is that women die in combat because they are less physically able. If you cannot find evidence to support the claim, then the claim has no merit. Simple logic. That's not "fuck equality", its "fuck bullshit that has no evidence". The standard of proof is not "unmeetable" simply because it has yet to be met.

What we do know is that women are being phased into combat roles, and that the Pentagon is actively reviewing their physical standards, to create a fitness criteria that all troops must meet. My argument is, and has always been, that men and women should all have to meet a fitness standard that does not discriminate against semantical differences. How many pull-ups an individual can do does not accurately reflect the ability of said individual in their completion of real-world tasks, and should not be a determining factor in whether or not they serve on the front lines.

You aren't opposed to affirmative action. This is in essence the military's version of affirmative action. Hence i fail to see how you be ok with affirmative action and yet not allow differential standards in the military?

Also the pullup test is only discriminatory against people (regardless of gender) who can't do three pullups. There men who can't and women who can and vice versa. That's not inherently discriminatory against women. And obviously the marine corps disagrees with you (though they have also likely been forced by political pressure to allow women who don't meet the standard in anyway).

Affirmative action is not about setting different standards. It's about adjusting for systemic bias. A pull-up test is discriminatory against women because it does not accurately reflect their ability to complete a task (save for a pull-up, and because women tend to have less proportional upper body strength than men). This re-evaluation of fitness standards is not analogous to affirmative action.

THAT'S THE GODDAMNED POINT.
It's discriminatory towards men too.
Turns out, military service desires upper-body strength. It's almost like one might have to carry heavy objects or something!
Fuck me this is almost sad.
Edit: It's also frustrating that you, as one who has never said men and women should be held to different standards, you seem to have such a large problem with people advocating men and women not be held to different standards.

Are you even bothering to read what I write? I have never said it doesn't discriminate against men, and carrying heavy objects requires as much lower body strength as upper body strength. If you want to test a person's ability to carry heavy shit, then have them carry heavy shit instead of doing pull-ups.
And for the umpteenth time, I have never advocated that men and women be held to different standards. I have advocated that the uniform standards they both meet not discriminate against either of them.

Jesus Christ.
You are one of THEM aren't you.
How is it discrimination to demand three pull ups. Because they can't do it?
Well fuck me, the army is discriminating against me because I can't do any pull ups. Can I have a job?

A pull-up test indicates nothing more than one's ability to do pull-ups. It's a bullshit standard, because how fucking often is a pull-up a matter of life or death in the military? If you can do your job adequately within all time and quality parameters, your ability or inability to do pull-ups should be inconsequential.

[Ostroeuropa]

So fuck equality because you don't think inequality is causing a problem yet?

And you wonder why people are critical of self-ascribed 'feminists'?

The standard of proof you demand is unmeetable, as we don't exactly receive information from the person that is killed on how they felt just before getting killed, do we?

We do however know women are serving in combat roles in positions which don't, and hold no prospective or plan from the Pentagon I can find, to bring their physical fitness standards up to those required of their male counterparts.

Again, you're argument over this point is confusing on a principal level if you believe yourself a feminist, and on an intellectual level if you refuse to accept generalizations as per the effects of physical fitness on combat performance applied to men also being applied to women. There is literally no way you can be arguing with us consistent with the 'equalism' philosophy you claim feminism is synonymous with.

The argument is that women die in combat because they are less physically able. If you cannot find evidence to support the claim, then the claim has no merit. Simple logic. That's not "fuck equality", its "fuck bullshit that has no evidence". The standard of proof is not "unmeetable" simply because it has yet to be met.

What we do know is that women are being phased into combat roles, and that the Pentagon is actively reviewing their physical standards, to create a fitness criteria that all troops must meet. My argument is, and has always been, that men and women should all have to meet a fitness standard that does not discriminate against semantical differences. How many pull-ups an individual can do does not accurately reflect the ability of said individual in their completion of real-world tasks, and should not be a determining factor in whether or not they serve on the front lines.

You aren't opposed to affirmative action. This is in essence the military's version of affirmative action. Hence i fail to see how you be ok with affirmative action and yet not allow differential standards in the military?

Also the pullup test is only discriminatory against people (regardless of gender) who can't do three pullups. There men who can't and women who can and vice versa. That's not inherently discriminatory against women. And obviously the marine corps disagrees with you (though they have also likely been forced by political pressure to allow women who don't meet the standard in anyway).

Affirmative action is not about setting different standards. It's about adjusting for systemic bias. A pull-up test is discriminatory against women because it does not accurately reflect their ability to complete a task (save for a pull-up, and because women tend to have less proportional upper body strength than men). This re-evaluation of fitness standards is not analogous to affirmative action.

THAT'S THE GODDAMNED POINT.
It's discriminatory towards men too.
Turns out, military service desires upper-body strength. It's almost like one might have to carry heavy objects or something!
Fuck me this is almost sad.
Edit: It's also frustrating that you, as one who has never said men and women should be held to different standards, you seem to have such a large problem with people advocating men and women not be held to different standards.

Are you even bothering to read what I write? I have never said it doesn't discriminate against men, and carrying heavy objects requires as much lower body strength as upper body strength. If you want to test a person's ability to carry heavy shit, then have them carry heavy shit instead of doing pull-ups.
And for the umpteenth time, I have never advocated that men and women be held to different standards. I have advocated that the uniform standards they both meet not discriminate against either of them.

Jesus Christ.
You are one of THEM aren't you.
How is it discrimination to demand three pull ups. Because they can't do it?
Well fuck me, the army is discriminating against me because I can't do any pull ups. Can I have a job?

A pull-up test indicates nothing more than one's ability to do pull-ups. It's a bullshit standard, because how fucking often is a pull-up a matter of life or death in the military? If you can do your job adequately within all time and quality parameters, your ability or inability to do pull-ups should be inconsequential.

Okey doke.
Then how a bout walking or running for miles and miles carrying heavy equipment on your back.
Or will that hurt some of the womens feels when they fail too?

Arguing it's a bad standard is completely different to what you argued.
You argued it was a standard that needed to be lowered for women. That's nonsense.

[Betoni]

I'm not the one qualifying feminists in to "true" and "false". In fact the OP failed to explain the difference between the two and wen't on how they can't find any "true" feminists. I merely provided some examples of organizations and individuals who identify themselves as feminists. I have no idea what you are rambling about.

When a feminist argues for male genocide, are they being a feminist in your opinion? They identify as feminist.

I'd say no. Would like a little more context though. I generally don't like loaded questions.