New page. New topic.

Have you noticed that some threads just won't die?

Go Cubbies!

EDIT
There's some nice parkour in the music video for Disturbed 'Are You Ready'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NJzOSuKuY&list=OLAK5uy_m44Aysws7WXfKOIWpFPRDGbfBXCMLapPM

The idea that no women can drag your fat ass across the floor is ridiculous and sexist. Anybody who can pass the CPAT and other qualifications can do the job.

Not even every male fire fighter could throw you over their shoulders and carry you to safety. It's a good thing they always come with buddies! But I guess since not all men could do it then none of them deserve to be fire fighters.

There's no job that is equally easy for everybody. That's the part about life not being fair. But that doesn't make a job male or female.

I'm sure not punching a woman in a face would make me more attractive than someone who does that, but that's not why I maintain a baseline of common decency.

"You cannot be a firefighter because you are a woman" is a sexist and inaccurate thing to say. "You cannot be a firefighter unless you are physically fit" is the proper attitude. And yes, if you are a woman it will be harder for you to do because life isn't "fair." This doesn't make it a "man's job" but a "strong person's job." That type of distinction is meaningful and important over and over again.

Regarding if a single woman was allowed to be a firefighter without passing the test*, I bet it has happened. And I bet there's male firefighters that haven't or cannot pass it any more. None of that has anything to do with the basic discussion on whether or not women should be allowed to be firefighters or how to label the job.

(*) And no, it's not unreasonable to take a step back and look if a particular test accurately represents what is needed on a job. If a person fails a test that is deemed to not be pertinent to the job, then the test needs to be modified accordingly to remove the bias. I'm not saying this applies to any particular single instance you could bring up -- but it is a valid consideration.

To suggest that women can do any job equally well as men is generally true, except for where muscle/abuse are involved. What we find is that the gaps get bigger the more freeing the society. When women must step up and take a high paying job they do it (e.g., India). It generally won't make them happy, but they have no choice. When they have a choice (e.g., Sweden) they overwhelmingly choose stereotypical roles and part time work. Whereas women are now encouraged to work any job they want, most still go into stereotypical feminine or neutral roles for less pay, and men are still stuck with the reality that they need to try to be breadwinners because odds are the woman you are matched with won't want to earn as much.

What's also sexist about it still is that women do not want to date men that make less money than them. That needs to change if you want to achieve a fair and just society that expects the same of women as it expects of men. As long as they continue to have all of the choices they will remain the Privileged Sex.

Feminism puts a bad and false spin on things. They suggest that if women were not supported doing certain jobs that it was meant as an oppression to keep them subservient to men. In reality, it wasn't so much "you can't do that!" Throughout history there are examples of women that did that, proving that it could be done. It's more like, "why would you want to do that?" You don't have to. And most importantly, women today rate their lives as less happy than previous generations.

I don't call that progress. Feminism is not about equality. It never was. If it was then we'd be teaching women that they own 50% of the burden for providing for their family (i.e., it's not a choice, any more than it is for men). That doesn't happen though. Most women today are not aiming for big careers, and the ones that do often change their minds as they start to accomplish milestones and realize that it doesn't make them happy. Inevitably, they take a break to focus on children, which necessarily comes before her career going forward. It's an ideology paid for by women to make themselves even more free and powerful. And it has been very powerful. And the harms done to society are evident to most people. But most dare not question the ideology.

This is the kind of thing that makes me so angry. The "dream" has not been realized. What we have is just a severely broken system where the balance of responsibility and power is completely fucked. That's why I'm anti-Feminist. But that doesn't mean that I think women should go back to the kitchen. On the contrary, we need to place upon them the same burdens that men face so that women can take up their fair share, equally responsible for them.

What's also lost with a modern lens is that short urethras and vaginas are very vulnerable to infection. Women used to work in the mines hundreds of years ago, but only when it became necessary. And the result was recurring infections that could be life threatening without modern medicine. It's funny how we don't read about that when it comes to stereotypical "women's work".

I call myself an egalitarian. I fully support moving our society to expect the same of both sexes. I'm not sure that's what's best for anyone, but I think given what we've done so far it's the only way forward. Give them the equality they demand by demanding as much of them as we do of men. Wherever women cannot handle it we would need to relax the pressure on men and free them of an unfair burden. I don't see how society will thrive under these conditions, but perhaps we need to commit to the idea to see if it will succeed or fail.

We certainly can't keep going this way.

Haven't been in here in a while.

Good stuff! Stick to it.

I'm praying a lot lately, but things don't look good. My wife of 36 years has cancer and may not survive longer than a few months. What's worse is she has brain cancer. It's an emotional roller coaster for me, not sure what to do or think.

That's awful to hear, NiteHackr. I wish you lots of strength.

Dump away. We're here for you if you need us to be.

That is absolutely terrible news. I can't begin to imagine the whirlwind of emotions you're experiencing right now. I'm so sorry, Neil. You're both in my prayers.

We may have our differences Neil, but I am sorry for the awful news. All I can suggest is you keep praying about it. Peter (petra) (the rock) is a good book to read and has some instructions for when people are sick. You're supposed to have the elders of the church anoint her with oil and pray over her. Enjoy the time you have left together as best you can.

I'm thinking maybe it's time to move on. This community is barely alive anymore, and that's unlikely to ever change. I could be using this time better. But I miss it here (I already do). My goal should be to find a new community for broad discussions with intelligent people from all over the world (suggestions welcome). And if it doesn't exist yet maybe create one.

You'll forever keep on lurking.

bamccaig: I've basically moved on to other forums, and discord. Engineering ones where people value objective facts and expect people to put effort in to learn instead of being spoonfed. My first post on one EE forum, they replied "draw the schematic." I had to put effort in if I wanted to learn the answer.

You're always welcome to message me! Play some Duke3D or something.

Also fun fact: I'm 95% sure I'm autistic. So if you disagree with me, you're actually attacking me. Between being part Jewish, autistic, [censored], and more, I'm basically godtier on the identity politics ladder. Don't hate the player, hate the patriarchy!

I'd love A.CC to be popular again. Seems like all "the kids" moved on to "game engine" and "game makers", and the rest ask on Stack Overflow.

Bam, if you leave I'm shutting this place down.

Maybe we just need to do another duet or two to cheer you up.