Re: "Why Homelessness is a Man Thing"

In article <gb9fe1dlhfbgpslsna1jtkdjgcqsg7hhpm@xxxxxxx>, kmas@xxxxxxxxxx
says...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:07:12 -0700, Mark Borgerson
> <mborgerson.at.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <dk7de1hp77un8i6up85t0p3urp6ii3ngcn@xxxxxxx>, kmas@xxxxxxxxxx
> >says...
> >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:39:06 GMT, Ken Chaddock
> >> <chaddock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >GL Fowler wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:45:45 GMT, Ken Chaddock
> >> >> <chaddock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>Mark Borgerson wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>In article <dc1l37$60m$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>>>says...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>Ken Chaddock (chaddock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>>it's just that simple,
> >> >>>>>>if the training system washes men out because they can't perform all of
> >> >>>>>>the tasks (they DO wash men out because they can't achieve all of the
> >> >>>>>>tasks don't they ?)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Nope. If you don't have the physical strength to one particular job,
> >> >>>>you get assigned to another. That happens quite often due to
> >> >>>>injuries or illness.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Which is of course the problem that Andre and GL Flower refuse to
> >> >>>address, that women are being treated differently than men are. If a man
> >> >>>fails to achieve the performance standard, he is re-mustered into a
> >> >>>different trade...which is also the way it's done in the Royal Navy, and
> >> >>>the Canadian Navy and the German Navy and the Swedish Navy...which are
> >> >>>the ones I'm most familiar with however if a woman fails to meet the
> >> >>>stated performance standard, then, at least according to Andre and GL,
> >> >>>it's cause to prevent her from going to sea at all...hummm
> >> >>>
> >> >>>...Ken
> >> >
> >> >> You are rapidly approaching 'pinhead status' Chaddock.
> >> >> You've been hanging around the fem-twits too long and are adopting
> >> >> their tactics 'embellishing the truth to fit your bent'.
> >> >
> >> > Let's examine that shall we ?
> >> >
> >> > You've argued that it's not "cost effective" to test women to determine
> >> >whether they can perform at an appropriate performance level, therefore
> >> >it is justifiable to not test them at all and to consequently not accept
> >> >any women for combat roles because some percentage of them may fail the
> >> >test.
> >> > At the same time you ignore the fact that a certain percentage of men
> >> >also fail to meet appropriate performance levels. You do not use this as
> >> >a prejudicial argument against men "as a class" but only against men as
> >> >individuals.
> >> > Since you propose to restrict women from combat roles...hell you
> >> >propose to not even find out whether they COULD perform adequately...you
> >> >are treating women "as a class" rather than as individuals whereas you
> >> >expect to treat men as individuals...you are proposing and defending the
> >> >treatment of women, NOT upon their merit as individuals but
> >> >prejudicially as a class.
> >> > This constitutes a bias and is not essentially different from the way
> >> >men are treated in family court where they are stereotyped and dealt
> >> >with, not on the merits and circumstances of their individual cases but
> >> >as a "class" who are *assumed* to be somehow "bad" or less meritorious
> >> >than women.
> >> >
> >> Sigh, pull the blinders off Ken. There are several limits that render
> >> a class of individuals entering the USAF ineligible. Namely as an
> >> individual who wishes to enter as a pilot or even an officer. If you
> >> do not have a degree you don't get in, irrespective, in the case of a
> >> pilot, no matter that you may hold a civilian equivalent. As and
> >> enlistee, if you don't have a high school diploma or GED, no entry
> >> irrespective of your ASVAB scores or IQ. Those classes of individuals
> >> are discriminated, they don't get to try out. The fact that it is not
> >> based on gender, which is the current darling buzz word makes not a
> >> matter in the argument.
> >>
> >> You seem to think it is some special discrimination that females as a
> >> class are denied the right to try out. They have no more exemption
> >> than anyone else. It's your opinion, no more. My opinion is that it
> >> is no more discrimination that others face routinely. If you squat to
> >> pee some one some where wants special treatment for them. You appear
> >> to be no different in this particular matter.
> >>
> >> Opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one, yours has no more merit
> >> than others.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Prove to me where I stated your assertion above. Just your vivid
> >> >> imagination so you can aggrandize your position.
> >> >
> >> > It's not necessary for you to *assert* this since this is the
> >> >implication of and the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from
> >> >your arguments.
> >> > Now if I've gotten the wrong impression from what you've said, I
> >> >apologize and I certainly hope you'll correct that impression by showing
> >> >how you would propose to treat women the same way you expect to treat
> >> >men and how you would propose to determine whether *individual* women
> >> >are capable of performing adequately in combat roles and how you would
> >> >propose to employ those who DO prove capable ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Simple answer, I don't. No one gets there drawers in a bind because
> >> some groups get discriminated by the group or sub group they may be
> >> assigned, therefore female groups excluded are not automatically a
> >> source of discrimination that need adjudicating. And yeah it's just my
> >> opinion, and yeah some say that I sit on it.
> >
> >Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of opinion. It's a matter of
> >law. Like other institutions, the military can discriminate based
> >on strength, health, physical conditioning, intelligence and
> >education. That's OK. However, according to law, they cannot
> >discriminate on the basis of race, national origin (other than
> >citizenship, perhaps), or gender. Congress made those laws, and
> >granted the military a very limited class of exceptions.
> >>
>
> And they make nice exceptions for themselves as they go along.
> I get the distinct impression that some here thing I advocate no women
> in the military in any instance. Not so, I served with good ones and
> bad, worked under a damn good one, worked for some real losers also,
> about the same as men.

I got out before there were very many women in my specialty
(Cryptology). I worked with just a few women---all junior
officers.
>
> The early years of implementing women in the military was not easy,
> not only from the men's perspective but women's also. Expectations
> was/is probably the biggest problem, no good base rules. I really
> don't give a damn whether women are in or out of any field except in
> that I'm or my counterpart is put at increased risk due to political
> game playing from the safety and comfort of a DC fireside. Such
> things as you point out above make it more and more difficult to keep
> the kid on the line alive, male or female.

Another major factor these days (for the Army and Marines, mostly) is
that we're in a war with no front lines. Casualties are happening
everywhere from supposedly secure mess halls to combat patrols in
lightly armored vehicles. Even the REMFs in the infantry and
armored divisions have reason to be nervous.
>
> Jerry
> >> >> Fuckin weasel.
> >> >
> >> > Oh my, that's not very pleasant is it ?
> >> >
> >> I just call'm as I see'm, upset you, killfile my ass and you won't
> >> have to see me again. Not a bead of sweat shall appear on my brow.
> >> Maybe if we had been setting across from each other the non verbal's
> >> would have given me a different view of you comment. This
> >> two-dimensional medium is limited in content.
> >>
> >> In the Grand Scheme of things, it don't mean nuthin' anyway!
> >>
> >> >...ken
> >>
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >> "The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come here."
> >> - Sir Arthur C. Clarke
> >>
> >

Mark Borgerson
.