Girly-Girls
Quote of the moment:
"You're not a little girly-girl, are you?" - grandpa to small boy afraid of climbing down off the garage roof, Desperate Housewives. In the show that was supposed to be a chauvanistic comment. YA! That's great. Boys (as a whole) are braver: fact. Girls care more: ditto. It's anthropology, doofus. Like the Harvard professor being ostracised for saying that fewer women are in sciences because men are better at them. IT'S TRUE. Male and female brains are different. Women are better at arts subjects. Fools.
On a similar theme, a Times Article said that injury rates among women in the army have risen to several times that of the men since universal fitness standards were introduced. This is apparently shocking and should be changed! The women have lower entry standards because they are generally less fit, and thus have to be forced up in fitness level at a faster rate during basic training in order to pass the end test. This causes most of those extra injuries and is a possible justification for extending training time, or just demanding greater efforts to get fit first.
A female commentator in The Times suggested that women should be allowed lower targets. Great plan. Let's take a woman in the Royal Artillery. When on operations they have to go on combat patrols as part of their section, platoon, company or higher, and if they contact the enemy they have to fight with the men. If they aren't fit enough, the whole unit is less capable, and the men in the unit are endangered because they have to mollycoddle the women. Plus, men cannot be expected to push themselves as hard when they know the women in their unit have an easier ride.
Cunning. Objection overuled, crushed and destroyed, way before addressing the all-important issue of morale and the resultant lack of confidence in all female soldiers, whether they were as fit as the men or not, and consequent lack of confidence in all units with female soldiers. That's everything except the infantry and armoured corps.
This might be viewed as chauvanist, but being a soldier is the ultimate man's job. It is a role that men have evolved for by natural selection: the best fighters win. If women want to be soldiers, they must be able to fulfil that role without any demand for compromise.
On a seperate note, I just watched Ring 2 (the Japanese original, hence no 'the'), after Ring last night. Prill told me to shut up about when I mentioned it, because it terrifies her so much. Sigh! Both were good, but psychic-powered children are about as scary as the baddies in Buffy.
"You're not a little girly-girl, are you?" - grandpa to small boy afraid of climbing down off the garage roof, Desperate Housewives. In the show that was supposed to be a chauvanistic comment. YA! That's great. Boys (as a whole) are braver: fact. Girls care more: ditto. It's anthropology, doofus. Like the Harvard professor being ostracised for saying that fewer women are in sciences because men are better at them. IT'S TRUE. Male and female brains are different. Women are better at arts subjects. Fools.
On a similar theme, a Times Article said that injury rates among women in the army have risen to several times that of the men since universal fitness standards were introduced. This is apparently shocking and should be changed! The women have lower entry standards because they are generally less fit, and thus have to be forced up in fitness level at a faster rate during basic training in order to pass the end test. This causes most of those extra injuries and is a possible justification for extending training time, or just demanding greater efforts to get fit first.
A female commentator in The Times suggested that women should be allowed lower targets. Great plan. Let's take a woman in the Royal Artillery. When on operations they have to go on combat patrols as part of their section, platoon, company or higher, and if they contact the enemy they have to fight with the men. If they aren't fit enough, the whole unit is less capable, and the men in the unit are endangered because they have to mollycoddle the women. Plus, men cannot be expected to push themselves as hard when they know the women in their unit have an easier ride.
Cunning. Objection overuled, crushed and destroyed, way before addressing the all-important issue of morale and the resultant lack of confidence in all female soldiers, whether they were as fit as the men or not, and consequent lack of confidence in all units with female soldiers. That's everything except the infantry and armoured corps.
This might be viewed as chauvanist, but being a soldier is the ultimate man's job. It is a role that men have evolved for by natural selection: the best fighters win. If women want to be soldiers, they must be able to fulfil that role without any demand for compromise.
On a seperate note, I just watched Ring 2 (the Japanese original, hence no 'the'), after Ring last night. Prill told me to shut up about when I mentioned it, because it terrifies her so much. Sigh! Both were good, but psychic-powered children are about as scary as the baddies in Buffy.
4 comments:
Hmm... I WAS just about to say, "OI! Shutit!" to the "Women are better at arts subjects. Fools." Coz.. I dunno, being a female, I should stand up for myself. But then again, yeh, I guess Willum DOES have a point. There are generally more men in the science field coz they're just more qualified. Having said that, I SWEAR over half of our Med class are girls. So... Hmm... Interesting.
But yes. About the army thing. True. Why should women be allowed lower targets? If that's the kinda job you wanna be in, then you gotta be better than the guys. Or just about as good. You can't be worse, and still expect to be able to do the same thing. If you know what I mean?:S
Sighage. So much for male and females being equal. No such thing. Ever.
It's gay really. Females want males to treat them as equals, but then still expect guys to buy them dinner, take them on romantic holidays... etc. Meh. Gay I say.:P
As for thing unmentionable word (****). Yes. Shush.
Lol...
Personally the end, when Sadako had the reconstructed face, reminded me of the automatons (living shop dummies) in Dr Who on Saturday and was therefore just funny :P
Medicine is in-between, because you need to be good at science AND good with people. Therefore for any sciency chick its ideal, but guys (inherently lazier) might opt for machinery/lab apparatus that doesnt talk back.
Besides, you're a boy called Bob :p
Also: in The Times top 100 companies to work for, it mentioned on the top civil engineering one that "it only had 35% women". Thats GOOD. It only has that many cos its a design-only company, with no hands on division. A solely hands on firm would only have about 10% max female engineers.
Why is this? Shocking discrimination? Nope... Most women just dont want to be engineers!
[Ironic, then, that in the Army women that want to get near the front have to join the Engineers or Artillery - the most technical corps]
Soz for getting RAWR. [Looks embaRaSSed - thanks Jimmy]
Finally, may I add that no company with a female majority would be considered to have done something wrong, nor would any female dominated industry be told to start initiatives to get more men involved. Bah humbug!
Post a Comment