Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[Jeckland]

I'm not sure how equal rights can go "too far..."

I think Jeck means those 'feminists' who in fact want to 'cure' sexism with sexism.

I don't think Jeck means the real goal feminism.

BAM!

Not only have you made my point for me, you've also used my IRC nickname.

[Orham]

It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender how can there be systemic bias?

Murder is illegal, so how can there be murder? :V

The pivot point between you two is the word "systemic". You're talking about the bias present in collective social norms (the social system), Llamalandia is talking about the system of law (the institutional system).

[Tavington]

Speaking as a woman (and equal rights supporter), I can't see any reason for quotas. If only white males are fit to be accepted to Yale? That's a problem with the education system, not with racism or sexism.

Good thinking.

[Camicon]

*snip*

Umm pilots get shot down now and again, (though actually women generally make better fighter pilots then though), everyone goes through basic training and even the most far remove soldier is expect to be able to fight if it comes to that. There have been plenty of instances in Iraq and Afghanistan where non-frontline units have had to fight off enemy attacks. So again, generally, the best soldier is often going to be the fittest soldier.
As for systemic bias seriously? It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender how can there be systemic bias? Besides, quotas go against individgual liberty and equality, people should be treated as individguals and not as a group. BEsides if company a or b or c fails to hire the best applicant merely because she is a woman, then no doubt company D will snatch her up and be the better and more prosperous for it. Hence capitalism is inherently designed to mitigate such bias.
Also, the point is in things like firefighting for example, I know I sure as heck want the best qualified person to rescue me and if that happens to be a woman great if not that's ok too. the problem is quotas in the name of correcting bias lead to employing people who aren't the best qualified merely to make society "feel better" about itself.
All this said, there are still some real feminists it's just that there mostly in mideast countries and many have to hide or are imprisoned or worse... they of course are fighting for things like, you know letting girls actually go to school or being able to drive a car or even just walk down the street without a male escourt. So yes true feminists do still exist there just aren't a whole heck of a lot left in western countries.

1) Yes, pilots sometimes get shot down.
2) Source your claim that women make better pilots.
3) Source your claim that "plenty" of none-front line units have engaged in open conflict with enemy combatants.
4) It's also illegal to murder people, to steal, to rape, to lie in court, yadda yadda yadda. "Not allowed" and "doesn't happen" are two very different things. The problem with systemic bias is that it is oftentimes unintentional on the part of the discriminator, and more often than not built into the structural paradigm, resulting in a biased outcome even when the acting individual is not. It is widespread, and invisible, and those individuals that are discriminated against do not have unlimited options, as you seem to imply they do.
5) All firefighters must prove they are fit to do the job, regardless of their sex. Likewise with police officers, and other such labour intensive jobs. That does not mean that all individuals must meet the same physical requirements; for instance, police work is as much about diplomacy and negotiation as it is about non-lethally disarming people, or chasing fleeing suspects. In fact, it is often more of the former than the latter. Physical requirements are not the only requirements, for any job.
6) The "feminazi's" as some call them, those people that advocate for a matriarchy, are a very small, very vocal minority, who's voice is amplified so as to create a dialogue in which the feminist movement, with which "feminazis" are wrongly associated, is put into a bad light by individuals that are uncomfortable with the idea of women receiving equal rights.

I could grill steaks every Friday, and call myself a vegetarian. I could go to war, and call myself a pacifist. I could call for the matriarchy, and call myself a feminist. The funny thing is, there are certain things that vegetarians and pacifists and feminists must avoid, if they want to be able to legitimately identify themselves as such. Vegetarians cannot eat meat. Pacifists cannot engage in violence. Feminists cannot call for a matriarchy. If they do one of those things, then what they self-identify as doesn't matter, because they are clearly factually wrong.

I think part of the problem is that the few remaining true feminists don't call out the fakers. At least it doesn't happen very often as far as I can tell. The silence from moderates does seem to lend a certain credibility to the extremist out there. It's a tacit approval if nothing else.

I think the real problem is that you simply don't pay attention to the actual feminist movement, and buy into the anti-equality propaganda spewed out by right-wing pundits that are terrified of black people and empowered women.

[Aequalitia]

I think Jeck means those 'feminists' who in fact want to 'cure' sexism with sexism.

I don't think Jeck means the real goal feminism.

BAM!

Not only have you made my point for me, you've also used my IRC nickname.

You was so oblivious to be honest

But well, I support feminism 100%, but I don't support those who's view are sexist, no matter of that person is a male or female.

[Orham]

Speaking as a woman (and equal rights supporter), I can't see any reason for quotas. If only white males are fit to be accepted to Yale? That's a problem with the education system, not with racism or sexism.

Good thinking.

Why is it that a problem with the education system cannot be racism or sexism? A general tendency for teachers to view male students requiring assistance one way, and female students requiring assistance another way (that is, sexism) could also be considered a problem in the educational system, can't it? I don't see why these things are mutually exclusive.

[Olthar]

Murder is illegal, so how can there be murder? :V

The pivot point between you two is the word "systemic". You're talking about the bias present in collective social norms (the social system), Llamalandia is talking about the system of law (the institutional system).

Because systems aren't composed of people.

[Orham]

The pivot point between you two is the word "systemic". You're talking about the bias present in collective social norms (the social system), Llamalandia is talking about the system of law (the institutional system).

Because systems aren't composed of people.

Beat you to the punch one post above.

[Frisivisia]

Lack of quotas only reenforces existing inequity by making sure that white males continue to be the only viable candidates by virtue of having already gotten everything already, again and again and again. It's not until we break down existing barriers that the advantage is equaled.

[Llamalandia]

Umm pilots get shot down now and again, (though actually women generally make better fighter pilots then though), everyone goes through basic training and even the most far remove soldier is expect to be able to fight if it comes to that. There have been plenty of instances in Iraq and Afghanistan where non-frontline units have had to fight off enemy attacks. So again, generally, the best soldier is often going to be the fittest soldier.
As for systemic bias seriously? It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender how can there be systemic bias? Besides, quotas go against individgual liberty and equality, people should be treated as individguals and not as a group. BEsides if company a or b or c fails to hire the best applicant merely because she is a woman, then no doubt company D will snatch her up and be the better and more prosperous for it. Hence capitalism is inherently designed to mitigate such bias.
Also, the point is in things like firefighting for example, I know I sure as heck want the best qualified person to rescue me and if that happens to be a woman great if not that's ok too. the problem is quotas in the name of correcting bias lead to employing people who aren't the best qualified merely to make society "feel better" about itself.
All this said, there are still some real feminists it's just that there mostly in mideast countries and many have to hide or are imprisoned or worse... they of course are fighting for things like, you know letting girls actually go to school or being able to drive a car or even just walk down the street without a male escourt. So yes true feminists do still exist there just aren't a whole heck of a lot left in western countries.

1) Yes, pilots sometimes get shot down.
2) Source your claim that women make better pilots.
3) Source your claim that "plenty" of none-front line units have engaged in open conflict with enemy combatants.
4) It's also illegal to murder people, to steal, to rape, to lie in court, yadda yadda yadda. "Not allowed" and "doesn't happen" are two very different things. The problem with systemic bias is that it is oftentimes unintentional on the part of the discriminator, and more often than not built into the structural paradigm, resulting in a biased outcome even when the acting individual is not. It is widespread, and invisible, and those individuals that are discriminated against do not have unlimited options, as you seem to imply they do.
5) All firefighters must prove they are fit to do the job, regardless of their sex. Likewise with police officers, and other such labour intensive jobs. That does not mean that all individuals must meet the same physical requirements; for instance, police work is as much about diplomacy and negotiation as it is about non-lethally disarming people, or chasing fleeing suspects. In fact, it is often more of the former than the latter. Physical requirements are not the only requirements, for any job.
6) The "feminazi's" as some call them, those people that advocate for a matriarchy, are a very small, very vocal minority, who's voice is amplified so as to create a dialogue in which the feminist movement, with which "feminazis" are wrongly associated, is put into a bad light by individuals that are uncomfortable with the idea of women receiving equal rights.

I think part of the problem is that the few remaining true feminists don't call out the fakers. At least it doesn't happen very often as far as I can tell. The silence from moderates does seem to lend a certain credibility to the extremist out there. It's a tacit approval if nothing else.

I think the real problem is that you simply don't pay attention to the actual feminist movement, and buy into the anti-equality propaganda spewed out by right-wing pundits that are terrified of black people and empowered women.

I don't really feel a huge need to back up with sources that first claim, that obviously supports your contention that physical prowess is always essential in certain combat roles.

As for non front line units coming under attack:

http://www.cmrlink.org/content/home/35891/grim_toll_of_military_women_killed_in_war

A long list of women kia in afghanistan and Iraq, some combat related some non-combat (Helicopter crashes and the like) . Keep in mind that's just kias there are other engagements.

As to structural bias as i side th law strongly mitigates against this when it does happen, and the evidence otherwise isnt really on your side as women have largely overtaken men in terms of college degrees (though there may be some lag in Stem it's not overwhelming by any means and could just be a natural variation based on interests).

Even if a firefighter is fit I still prefer the most fit firefighter to be given the job as being more fit may given them a slight advantage, heck say, they have have to carry a person who ways just a bit more down five flights of stairs. Besides in a meritocracy it's only right and just to reward the best qualified individual period.

While I certainly do consume a decent amount of right wing news I actually watch and listen to liberals more than anything else and the only time I ever see msnbc criticize any women's position no matter how ridiculous is when she's supporting gun rights or opposing obamacare. So to say it's just left/right thing I believe is incorrect or at least an inadequate description of the situation.

Also do you have a link to the actual feminist movement (aside from as I mention earlier the mideast) who are the feminists I should be listening to?

[Camicon]

Lack of quotas only reenforces existing inequity by making sure that white males continue to be the only viable candidates by virtue of having already gotten everything already, again and again and again. It's not until we break down existing barriers that the advantage is equaled.

Why don't I ever hear you say this on the TV, Joe?

[Frisivisia]

Lack of quotas only reenforces existing inequity by making sure that white males continue to be the only viable candidates by virtue of having already gotten everything already, again and again and again. It's not until we break down existing barriers that the advantage is equaled.

Why don't I ever hear you say this on the TV, Joe?

Because Obama won't let me. Says people hear things like that and think that I think women are superior.

[Llamalandia]

Lack of quotas only reenforces existing inequity by making sure that white males continue to be the only viable candidates by virtue of having already gotten everything already, again and again and again. It's not until we break down existing barriers that the advantage is equaled.

But that's demonstrably untrue. there are and have been for quite sometime if nothing else outliers that disprove this supposition. I mean there have throughout history been women who despite there being actual and open sexism still overcame it and did great things. Like Rosa Parks or Murie Curie or Eleanor Roosevelt. Besides by that logic we'd have to move towards a more socialistic or comunistic system to ensure what essentially amounts to an equality of outcome.

That being said, yeah, education in the USA needs to be better funded and taken more seriously by everyone involved. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't promote some students over others just because it seems like society has been historically unfair to a certain group. We are all ultimately masters of our own destinies and therefor responsible for find and maximizing all of life's opportunities to the fullest.

[Oaledonia]

Equalism > Feminism

[Llamalandia]

Why don't I ever hear you say this on the TV, Joe?

Because Obama won't let me. Says people hear things like that and think that I think women are superior.

No actually that makes it sound more like women are inferior and therefore we must help them by giving them preferential treatment.

[Camicon]

1) Yes, pilots sometimes get shot down.
2) Source your claim that women make better pilots.
3) Source your claim that "plenty" of none-front line units have engaged in open conflict with enemy combatants.
4) It's also illegal to murder people, to steal, to rape, to lie in court, yadda yadda yadda. "Not allowed" and "doesn't happen" are two very different things. The problem with systemic bias is that it is oftentimes unintentional on the part of the discriminator, and more often than not built into the structural paradigm, resulting in a biased outcome even when the acting individual is not. It is widespread, and invisible, and those individuals that are discriminated against do not have unlimited options, as you seem to imply they do.
5) All firefighters must prove they are fit to do the job, regardless of their sex. Likewise with police officers, and other such labour intensive jobs. That does not mean that all individuals must meet the same physical requirements; for instance, police work is as much about diplomacy and negotiation as it is about non-lethally disarming people, or chasing fleeing suspects. In fact, it is often more of the former than the latter. Physical requirements are not the only requirements, for any job.
6) The "feminazi's" as some call them, those people that advocate for a matriarchy, are a very small, very vocal minority, who's voice is amplified so as to create a dialogue in which the feminist movement, with which "feminazis" are wrongly associated, is put into a bad light by individuals that are uncomfortable with the idea of women receiving equal rights.

I think the real problem is that you simply don't pay attention to the actual feminist movement, and buy into the anti-equality propaganda spewed out by right-wing pundits that are terrified of black people and empowered women.

I don't really feel a huge need to back up with sources that first claim, that obviously supports your contention that physical prowess is always essential in certain combat roles.
As for non front line units coming under attack:
http://www.cmrlink.org/content/home/35891/grim_toll_of_military_women_killed_in_war
A long list of women kia in afghanistan and Iraq, some combat related some non-combat (Helicopter crashes and the like) . Keep in mind that's just kias there are other engagements.
As to structural bias as i side th law strongly mitigates against this when it does happen, and the evidence otherwise isnt really on your side as women have largely overtaken men in terms of college degrees (though there may be some lag in Stem it's not overwhelming by any means and could just be a natural variation based on interests).
Even if a firefighter is fit I still prefer the most fit firefighter to be given the job as being more fit may given them a slight advantage, heck say, they have have to carry a person who ways just a bit more down five flights of stairs. Besides in a meritocracy it's only right and just to reward the best qualified individual period.
While I certainly do consume a decent amount of right wing news I actually watch and listen to liberals more than anything else and the only time I ever see msnbc criticize any women's position no matter how ridiculous is when she's supporting gun rights or opposing obamacare. So to say it's just left/right thing I believe is incorrect or at least an inadequate description of the situation.
Also do you have a link to the actual feminist movement (aside from as I mention earlier the mideast) who are the feminists I should be listening to?

I never contested that physical ability is important in military combat roles. I contested your assertion that such requirements were lowered for women who want to serve on the front lines. That has never been the case in the USA. By the way, your source fails to mention a single woman that was killed by an enemy combatant in open conflict. Of all the causes of death mentioned, not a single one involved shooting at and being shot by an enemy combatant.
The judicial system, like everything else in society, suffers from a systemic discriminatory bias against women and minorities, in almost all cases. And while you are correct that the percentages of men and women completing post-secondary education has changed dramatically, what should be of note is that the workforce does not reflect this dynamic.
You seem to be confusing the term "physically fit" with "fit". The first refers to physical ability. The second refers to one's overall ability. Overall ability is what matters. The physically less-able firefighter may be a more able firefighter overall than their muscle-bound companion, due to that fact that firefighting involves far more than chopping down doors with axes, and hauling dead weight for fifty-some yards (also, we don't live in a meritocracy).
If you absorb news without critically examining it, regardless of the source, then your perceptions and opinions of many things (essentially everything) will be horribly distorted. MSNBC is as biased as FOX, though in a different way. Neither can be taken at face value (though MSNBC slightly moreso than FOX, who has had longer to hone their bullshit-fu). No, it isn't necessarily a left-right thing, but through the red-blue-and-white glasses that American media views the world, reality has a distinctly "left" bent to it.

[Camicon]

Why don't I ever hear you say this on the TV, Joe?

Because Obama won't let me. Says people hear things like that and think that I think women are superior.

Are you gonna just go "fuck it" at some point, and start ignoring him? I mean, it's his last term as POTUS, probably your last term as Veep, and it's not like you're getting any younger. Retire. Live comfortably on your government pension. Go out with a bang.

Equalism > Feminism

Equality = Feminism.

In the context of the two social movements they represent, they're synonyms.

[Llamalandia]

I don't really feel a huge need to back up with sources that first claim, that obviously supports your contention that physical prowess is always essential in certain combat roles.
As for non front line units coming under attack:
http://www.cmrlink.org/content/home/35891/grim_toll_of_military_women_killed_in_war
A long list of women kia in afghanistan and Iraq, some combat related some non-combat (Helicopter crashes and the like) . Keep in mind that's just kias there are other engagements.
As to structural bias as i side th law strongly mitigates against this when it does happen, and the evidence otherwise isnt really on your side as women have largely overtaken men in terms of college degrees (though there may be some lag in Stem it's not overwhelming by any means and could just be a natural variation based on interests).
Even if a firefighter is fit I still prefer the most fit firefighter to be given the job as being more fit may given them a slight advantage, heck say, they have have to carry a person who ways just a bit more down five flights of stairs. Besides in a meritocracy it's only right and just to reward the best qualified individual period.
While I certainly do consume a decent amount of right wing news I actually watch and listen to liberals more than anything else and the only time I ever see msnbc criticize any women's position no matter how ridiculous is when she's supporting gun rights or opposing obamacare. So to say it's just left/right thing I believe is incorrect or at least an inadequate description of the situation.
Also do you have a link to the actual feminist movement (aside from as I mention earlier the mideast) who are the feminists I should be listening to?

I never contested that physical ability is important in military combat roles. I contested your assertion that such requirements were lowered for women who want to serve on the front lines. That has never been the case in the USA. By the way, your source fails to mention a single woman that was killed by an enemy combatant in open conflict. Of all the causes of death mentioned, not a single one involved shooting at and being shot by an enemy combatant.
The judicial system, like everything else in society, suffers from a systemic discriminatory bias against women and minorities, in almost all cases. And while you are correct that the percentages of men and women completing post-secondary education has changed dramatically, what should be of note is that the workforce does not reflect this dynamic.
You seem to be confusing the term "physically fit" with "fit". The first refers to physical ability. The second refers to one's overall ability. Overall ability is what matters. The physically less-able firefighter may be a more able firefighter overall than their muscle-bound companion, due to that fact that firefighting involves far more than chopping down doors with axes, and hauling dead weight for fifty-some yards.
If you absorb news without critically examining it, regardless of the source, then your perceptions and opinions of many things (essentially everything) will be horribly distorted. MSNBC is as biased as FOX, though in a different way. Neither can be taken at face value (though MSNBC slightly moreso than FOX, who has had longer to hone their bullshit-fu). No, it isn't necessarily a left-right thing, but through the red-blue-and-white glasses that American media views the world, reality has a distinctly "left" bent to it.

The following chart shows examples of the minimum requirements for the Army Basic Training PFT:

Age Group Gender Push-Ups Sit-Ups 2-Mile Run
17 - 21 Male 35 47 16:36
Female 13 47 19:42
22 - 26 Male 31 43 17:30
Female 11 43 20:36

The minimum score requirements for the Basic Training PFT differ from the requirements to graduate from AIT. To graduate AIT you must score 180 points or higher on the end-of-cycle APFT with at least 60 points in each event.

The following chart shows the minimum score allowed to graduate from AIT and the requirements for your semi-annual Army PFT there after:

Age Group Gender Push-Ups Sit-Ups 2-Mile Run
17 - 21 Male 42 53 15:54
Female 19 53 18:54
22 - 26 Male 40 50 16:36
Female 17 50 19:36

First off given that most major combat roles are still closed to women (though the Dod is in the process of opening them up) and thus women have never been officially allowed to serve on the front lines. My point is that almost any unit may at some ppint be involved in combat or trapped behind the lines or otherwise wind up in some situation which physical prowess is a key to survival. The army has different standards for soldiers based on gender (and age which also seems largely like bs) which means that less fit women will sometimes make the cut even though some men who are just as fit don't, how is that fair?

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I know what you are probably thinking. Of course feminism exists! It's stronger than ever! However some 'feminists' want more than equal rights for females, and for them to be given an advantage in jobseeking and other areas. The most obvious example of this is quotas, where a company says we need x number of female workers. They may also have racial quotas. What do you think about quotas? I think they are ridiculous, in my opinion Margret Thatcher had it right on this one, that a job should be given to the best person for it, whatever gender, race, sexuality, background etc. they come from. An example of where quotas are used is in the British Police Force, where in each area they have a number of cops representing each gender and race. I believe this is wrong, because they may not make the best policemen. What I think is even worse though is how the BBC, and indeed other companies, use more women and racial minorities. The whole idea of having quotas for women, and indeed ethnic minorities, in my opinion is wrong. I would define true feminism as what Margret Thatcher said. How would you define true feminism and what are your views on quotas?

so long as women aren't ready to accept their place in the world, feminism will continue in some form or another I think...

WHAT?! Nobody has a place in life defined by, of all things, genitalia!

[Oaledonia]

Equality = Feminism.

In the context of the two social movements they represent, they're synonyms.

Equality = Equalism
Feminism =/= Equalism
Feminism's name by itself gives the perception of entitlement, whilst Equalism considers that no one is entitled. That it the key difference.

[Llamalandia]

I don't really feel a huge need to back up with sources that first claim, that obviously supports your contention that physical prowess is always essential in certain combat roles.
As for non front line units coming under attack:
http://www.cmrlink.org/content/home/35891/grim_toll_of_military_women_killed_in_war
A long list of women kia in afghanistan and Iraq, some combat related some non-combat (Helicopter crashes and the like) . Keep in mind that's just kias there are other engagements.
As to structural bias as i side th law strongly mitigates against this when it does happen, and the evidence otherwise isnt really on your side as women have largely overtaken men in terms of college degrees (though there may be some lag in Stem it's not overwhelming by any means and could just be a natural variation based on interests).
Even if a firefighter is fit I still prefer the most fit firefighter to be given the job as being more fit may given them a slight advantage, heck say, they have have to carry a person who ways just a bit more down five flights of stairs. Besides in a meritocracy it's only right and just to reward the best qualified individual period.
While I certainly do consume a decent amount of right wing news I actually watch and listen to liberals more than anything else and the only time I ever see msnbc criticize any women's position no matter how ridiculous is when she's supporting gun rights or opposing obamacare. So to say it's just left/right thing I believe is incorrect or at least an inadequate description of the situation.
Also do you have a link to the actual feminist movement (aside from as I mention earlier the mideast) who are the feminists I should be listening to?

I never contested that physical ability is important in military combat roles. I contested your assertion that such requirements were lowered for women who want to serve on the front lines. That has never been the case in the USA. By the way, your source fails to mention a single woman that was killed by an enemy combatant in open conflict. Of all the causes of death mentioned, not a single one involved shooting at and being shot by an enemy combatant.
The judicial system, like everything else in society, suffers from a systemic discriminatory bias against women and minorities, in almost all cases. And while you are correct that the percentages of men and women completing post-secondary education has changed dramatically, what should be of note is that the workforce does not reflect this dynamic.
You seem to be confusing the term "physically fit" with "fit". The first refers to physical ability. The second refers to one's overall ability. Overall ability is what matters. The physically less-able firefighter may be a more able firefighter overall than their muscle-bound companion, due to that fact that firefighting involves far more than chopping down doors with axes, and hauling dead weight for fifty-some yards (also, we don't live in a meritocracy).
If you absorb news without critically examining it, regardless of the source, then your perceptions and opinions of many things (essentially everything) will be horribly distorted. MSNBC is as biased as FOX, though in a different way. Neither can be taken at face value (though MSNBC slightly moreso than FOX, who has had longer to hone their bullshit-fu). No, it isn't necessarily a left-right thing, but through the red-blue-and-white glasses that American media views the world, reality has a distinctly "left" bent to it.

well again i would ask what feminists (besides yourself maybe ) I should be listening to if I want to be exposed to current mainstream feminism? I mean I can think of some very popular and examples of women who claim to be and are supported by others also claiming to be feminists like for example Anita Sarkesian who largely fit the the so-called shrill feminazi mold. Don't know of too many contemporary western feminists though who sound much like yourself so please feel free to enlighten me.

[Camicon]

I never contested that physical ability is important in military combat roles. I contested your assertion that such requirements were lowered for women who want to serve on the front lines. That has never been the case in the USA. By the way, your source fails to mention a single woman that was killed by an enemy combatant in open conflict. Of all the causes of death mentioned, not a single one involved shooting at and being shot by an enemy combatant.
The judicial system, like everything else in society, suffers from a systemic discriminatory bias against women and minorities, in almost all cases. And while you are correct that the percentages of men and women completing post-secondary education has changed dramatically, what should be of note is that the workforce does not reflect this dynamic.
You seem to be confusing the term "physically fit" with "fit". The first refers to physical ability. The second refers to one's overall ability. Overall ability is what matters. The physically less-able firefighter may be a more able firefighter overall than their muscle-bound companion, due to that fact that firefighting involves far more than chopping down doors with axes, and hauling dead weight for fifty-some yards.
If you absorb news without critically examining it, regardless of the source, then your perceptions and opinions of many things (essentially everything) will be horribly distorted. MSNBC is as biased as FOX, though in a different way. Neither can be taken at face value (though MSNBC slightly moreso than FOX, who has had longer to hone their bullshit-fu). No, it isn't necessarily a left-right thing, but through the red-blue-and-white glasses that American media views the world, reality has a distinctly "left" bent to it.

The following chart shows examples of the minimum requirements for the Army Basic Training PFT:

Age Group Gender Push-Ups Sit-Ups 2-Mile Run
17 - 21 Male 35 47 16:36
Female 13 47 19:42
22 - 26 Male 31 43 17:30
Female 11 43 20:36

The minimum score requirements for the Basic Training PFT differ from the requirements to graduate from AIT. To graduate AIT you must score 180 points or higher on the end-of-cycle APFT with at least 60 points in each event.

The following chart shows the minimum score allowed to graduate from AIT and the requirements for your semi-annual Army PFT there after:

Age Group Gender Push-Ups Sit-Ups 2-Mile Run
17 - 21 Male 42 53 15:54
Female 19 53 18:54
22 - 26 Male 40 50 16:36
Female 17 50 19:36

First off given that most major combat roles are still closed to women (though the Dod is in the process of opening them up) and thus women have never been officially allowed to serve on the front lines. My point is that almost any unit may at some ppint be involved in combat or trapped behind the lines or otherwise wind up in some situation which physical prowess is a key to survival. The army has different standards for soldiers based on gender (and age which also seems largely like bs) which means that less fit women will sometimes make the cut even though some men who are just as fit don't, how is that fair?

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft

Have any women served on the front lines yet? No? Then this isn't an issue. If they do end up serving on the front lines, while simultaneously being assessed by different standards than men are, then and only then can you make a stink about this. The criteria have not been met, nor are they ever likely to be, as the Pentagon is well on their way to revising the male and female physical fitness standards to a uniform baseline, so you can consider this line of support to be cut.

[Camicon]

Equality = Feminism.

In the context of the two social movements they represent, they're synonyms.

Equality = Equalism
Feminism =/= Equalism
Feminism's name by itself gives the perception of entitlement, whilst Equalism considers that no one is entitled. That it the key difference.

Feminism gives the perception of entitlement only to the ignorant, as you aptly displayed yourself to be, by demonstrating a lack of understanding of the word "synonym".

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I don't really feel a huge need to back up with sources that first claim, that obviously supports your contention that physical prowess is always essential in certain combat roles.
As for non front line units coming under attack:
http://www.cmrlink.org/content/home/35891/grim_toll_of_military_women_killed_in_war
A long list of women kia in afghanistan and Iraq, some combat related some non-combat (Helicopter crashes and the like) . Keep in mind that's just kias there are other engagements.
As to structural bias as i side th law strongly mitigates against this when it does happen, and the evidence otherwise isnt really on your side as women have largely overtaken men in terms of college degrees (though there may be some lag in Stem it's not overwhelming by any means and could just be a natural variation based on interests).
Even if a firefighter is fit I still prefer the most fit firefighter to be given the job as being more fit may given them a slight advantage, heck say, they have have to carry a person who ways just a bit more down five flights of stairs. Besides in a meritocracy it's only right and just to reward the best qualified individual period.
While I certainly do consume a decent amount of right wing news I actually watch and listen to liberals more than anything else and the only time I ever see msnbc criticize any women's position no matter how ridiculous is when she's supporting gun rights or opposing obamacare. So to say it's just left/right thing I believe is incorrect or at least an inadequate description of the situation.
Also do you have a link to the actual feminist movement (aside from as I mention earlier the mideast) who are the feminists I should be listening to?

I never contested that physical ability is important in military combat roles. I contested your assertion that such requirements were lowered for women who want to serve on the front lines. That has never been the case in the USA. By the way, your source fails to mention a single woman that was killed by an enemy combatant in open conflict. Of all the causes of death mentioned, not a single one involved shooting at and being shot by an enemy combatant.
The judicial system, like everything else in society, suffers from a systemic discriminatory bias against women and minorities, in almost all cases. And while you are correct that the percentages of men and women completing post-secondary education has changed dramatically, what should be of note is that the workforce does not reflect this dynamic.
You seem to be confusing the term "physically fit" with "fit". The first refers to physical ability. The second refers to one's overall ability. Overall ability is what matters. The physically less-able firefighter may be a more able firefighter overall than their muscle-bound companion, due to that fact that firefighting involves far more than chopping down doors with axes, and hauling dead weight for fifty-some yards (also, we don't live in a meritocracy).
If you absorb news without critically examining it, regardless of the source, then your perceptions and opinions of many things (essentially everything) will be horribly distorted. MSNBC is as biased as FOX, though in a different way. Neither can be taken at face value (though MSNBC slightly moreso than FOX, who has had longer to hone their bullshit-fu). No, it isn't necessarily a left-right thing, but through the red-blue-and-white glasses that American media views the world, reality has a distinctly "left" bent to it.

Damn...MSNBC convinced me that Iraq War was fought for oil.

[Llamalandia]

First off given that most major combat roles are still closed to women (though the Dod is in the process of opening them up) and thus women have never been officially allowed to serve on the front lines. My point is that almost any unit may at some ppint be involved in combat or trapped behind the lines or otherwise wind up in some situation which physical prowess is a key to survival. The army has different standards for soldiers based on gender (and age which also seems largely like bs) which means that less fit women will sometimes make the cut even though some men who are just as fit don't, how is that fair?

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft

Have any women served on the front lines yet? No? Then this isn't an issue. If they do end up serving on the front lines, while simultaneously being assessed by different standards than men are, then and only then can you make a stink about this. The criteria have not been met, nor are they ever likely to be, as the Pentagon is well on their way to revising the male and female physical fitness standards to a uniform baseline, so you can consider this line of support to be cut.

It doesn;t freaking matter whether or not your on the front line that's not he only time you are attack nor the only time physicality comes into play while soldiering. Besides, what is the rational basis for having two seperate sets of standards anyway? I mean people have to do plenty of routine manual labor in various non-combat military mos's why in the hell shouldn't everyone be held to the exact same standard? How does that make any logical sense. Either you need to be able to do 35 pushups to be a soldier or you don't. One way or the other.