Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I was visiting someone in an extended care facility today. As I was driving up I saw a bunch of young people in shorts and T shirts. Getting out of the car I heard an older guy giving them instructions. Heard him say they had to run around this rectangle of paved area around a field they were in four times. Heard him say the guys had to do it in 13 minutes and the gals had to do it in 15 minutes.

So I'm inside and I ask a nurse what's going on. She says they're army recruits. Says there's a recruiting station in a shopping center nearby.

I know we had another thread where this kind of thing was mentioned but what the heck are we doing as a society? I mean, if there's a reason for saying someone who is going to be in the army has to run a certain distance within a certain time that's fine. But WHY would that time change because of a person's sex?

It's over for this country. There's now way we can survive much longer by historical standards with this egalitarian crap influencing things as much as it does.

I don't think this "egalitarian crap" is going to be the cause of our demise. Without egalitarianism it's very likely you would be a serf.

I do however agree that the standards in this instance should be the same. You're either physically capable of the job or you're a liability. Gender shouldn't matter.

Diversity is important.

Pwns wrote:Diversity is important.

It can be an advantage.

Take a deep breath you fuckin drama queen.

Grizalltheway wrote:Take a deep breath you fuckin drama queen.

Seriously.

Mind your own business, JSO. And stop going out of your way to be pissed off about trivial bullshit.

Not to mention the fact that these "double standards" have existed since women were allowed in the military.

Considering all the allegations of rape in the military lately, I think the women should have to be faster than the men.

JohnStOnge wrote:I was visiting someone in an extended care facility today. As I was driving up I saw a bunch of young people in shorts and T shirts. Getting out of the car I heard an older guy giving them instructions. Heard him say they had to run around this rectangle of paved area around a field they were in four times. Heard him say the guys had to do it in 13 minutes and the gals had to do it in 15 minutes.

So I'm inside and I ask a nurse what's going on. She says they're army recruits. Says there's a recruiting station in a shopping center nearby.

I know we had another thread where this kind of thing was mentioned but what the heck are we doing as a society? I mean, if there's a reason for saying someone who is going to be in the army has to run a certain distance within a certain time that's fine. But WHY would that time change because of a person's sex?

It's over for this country. There's now way we can survive much longer by historical standards with this egalitarian crap influencing things as much as it does.

Because this Country is Phucked UP!!!

Men get screwed in Divorce Court. Deal with it and move on!

JohnStOnge wrote:I was visiting someone in an extended care facility today. As I was driving up I saw a bunch of young people in shorts and T shirts. Getting out of the car I heard an older guy giving them instructions. Heard him say they had to run around this rectangle of paved area around a field they were in four times. Heard him say the guys had to do it in 13 minutes and the gals had to do it in 15 minutes.

So I'm inside and I ask a nurse what's going on. She says they're army recruits. Says there's a recruiting station in a shopping center nearby.

I know we had another thread where this kind of thing was mentioned but what the heck are we doing as a society? I mean, if there's a reason for saying someone who is going to be in the army has to run a certain distance within a certain time that's fine. But WHY would that time change because of a person's sex?

It's over for this country. There's now way we can survive much longer by historical standards with this egalitarian crap influencing things as much as it does.

John you're so specific about how YOU apply your very rigid standards
You are extremely focused on one area and absolutely blind as a bat in others - frankly it's odd

kalm wrote:

Pwns wrote:Diversity is important.

It can be an advantage.

If you're talking about diversity it can be an advantage as long as you still let objective standards govern the outcome. For example: The overwhelming majority of people on US Olympic sprint teams over the past 30 years have been Black while the overwhelming majority of people on US Olympic swim teams have been White. The fact that the country has both Blacks and Whites increases its chances of winning more medals in the Olympics.

But if you were to insist upon diversity within each unit just for the purpose of having diversity the US Olympic team would be screwed. Suppose you were to insist that the sprint team "looks like America?" That would mean the majority of the sprinters would have to be White.

Not as bad but suppose you were to insist that the swim team always had to have something on the order of 13% Black swimmers so that it would be "racially diverse?"

You know very well that would hurt the overall Olympic effort. And that's how it works. Diversity of input is a strength. Insisting on diversity of outcome is a weakness.

You establish objective standards and let the chips fall where they may. You don't worry at ALL about whether or not you end up with a "diverse" outcome for a particular unit.

That's if you have sense. But we don't.

John you're so specific about how YOU apply your very rigid standards
You are extremely focused on one area and absolutely blind as a bat in others - frankly it's odd

Elaborate. What is an example of an area I'm "blind as a bat" about?

What we have here is pretty straightforward. You've got a system that apparently says how fast someone can run a certain distance is important. Why should you have different standards for different sexes?

What, for instance, is your basis for saying you won't accept a male who runs the distance in 14 minutes but will accept a female who runs it in 15 minutes?

What POSSIBLE justification can you have for that in terms of a paradigm in which you're trying to select the best people for the position?

Mistake.

JohnStOnge wrote:

John you're so specific about how YOU apply your very rigid standards
You are extremely focused on one area and absolutely blind as a bat in others - frankly it's odd

Elaborate.

What we have here is pretty straightforward. You've got a system that apparently says how fast someone can run a certain distance is important. Why should you have different standards for different sexes?

What, for instance, is your basis for saying you won't accept a male who runs the distance in 14 minutes but will accept a female who runs it in 15 minutes?

What POSSIBLE justification can you have for that in terms of a paradigm in which you're trying to select the best people for the position?

I'm not disagreeing with your observation's accuracy
or your point specifically... What piques my interest is how you see this as the eventual downfall (the end) of our society or to quote your grand statement "There's no way we can survive much longer by historical standards" because girls aren't expected to run as fast...

Aren't their other forces at play that are more destructive to our society than egalitarianism..?

Curiously, egalitarianism was (at one point) considered the single most important factor in the development of THIS country and the free world as a whole

It's damn curious (secretly I find you fascinating)
Some folks have suggested that all those bankers that brought the world to it's knees should have been hanged in the streets across the globe... Yet we bailed them out

Islam
Infecting the minds of some 25% of the entire globe... and growing faster than your beloved Christianity by a wide margin - some folks see that as a real problem

What drives you..?