Quote:

---

Americans Are Officially Freaking Out

Almost two-thirds say this is the lowest point in U.S. history—and it’s keeping a lot of them up at night.

For those lying awake at night worried about health care, the economy, and an overall feeling of divide between you and your neighbors, there’s at least one source of comfort: Your neighbors might very well be lying awake, too.

Almost two-thirds of Americans, or 63 percent, report being stressed about the future of the nation, according to the American Psychological Association’s Eleventh Stress in America survey, conducted in August and released on Wednesday. This worry about the fate of the union tops longstanding stressors such as money (62 percent) and work (61 percent) and also cuts across political proclivities. However, a significantly larger proportion of Democrats (73 percent) reported feeling stress than independents (59 percent) and Republicans (56 percent).

The “current social divisiveness” in America was reported by 59 percent of those surveyed as a cause of their own malaise. When the APA surveyed Americans a year ago, 52 percent said they were stressed by the presidential campaign. Since then, anxieties have only grown.

A majority of the more than 3,400 Americans polled, 59 percent, said “they consider this to to be the lowest point in our nation’s history that they can remember.” That sentiment spanned generations, including those that lived through World War II, the Vietnam War, and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. (Some 30 percent of people polled cited terrorism as a source of concern, a number that’s likely to rise given the alleged terrorist attack in New York City on Tuesday.)

“We have a picture that says people are concerned,” said Arthur Evans, APA’s chief executive officer. “Any one data point may not not be so important, but taken together, it starts to paint a picture.”

The survey didn’t ask respondents specifically about the administration of President Donald Trump, Evans said. He points to the “acrimony in the public discourse” and “the general feeling that we are divided as a country” as being more important than any particular person or political party.

Yet he and the study note that particular policy issues are a major source of anxiety. Some 43 percent of respondents said health care was a cause. The economy (35 percent) and trust in government (32 percent) also ranked highly, as did hate crimes (31 percent) and crime in general (31 percent).



“Policymakers need to understand that this is an issue that is important to people, that the uncertainty is having an impact on stress levels, and that stress has an impact on health status,” Evans said, pointing out that the relationship between stress and health is well-established.

And keeping up with the latest developments is a source of worry all its own. Most Americans—56 percent—said they want to stay informed, but the news causes them stress. (Yet even more, 72 percent, said “the media blows things out of proportion.”)

The APA survey did find, however, that not everyone is feeling the same degree of anxiety. Women normally report higher levels of stress than men, though worries among both genders tend to rise or fall in tandem. This year, however, they diverged: On a 10-point scale, women reported a slight increase in stress, rising from an average 5.0 in 2016 to 5.1 in 2017, while the level for men dropped, from an average 4.6 to 4.4.

Racial divides also exist in reported stress. While the levels among blacks and Hispanics were lower in 2016 than the year before, they rose for both groups in 2017, to 5.2 for Hispanic adults and 5.0 for black adults. Among whites, meanwhile, the average remained the same, at 4.7.


The report also notes that many Americans are finding at least one healthy way to feel better: 53 percent reported exercising or doing other physical activity to cope. Social support is also important, Evans said. “Third,” he says, “I think it’s really important for people to disconnect from the constant barrage of information.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
I can remember...,Watergate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
...living in Man-grope-istan...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:


Yanno... Maybe you should talk to a woman living in one of the actual "istans" and see the life they have to lead compared to how women in this country have it.

---

Quote:

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/only-1-in-3-women-identify-as-feminists-des
pite-feminist-beliefs-153424581.html
Only 1 in 3 Women Identify as Feminists — Despite ‘Feminist’ Beliefs

---

Quote:

---

That's why most women don't want to talk about Feminism in regular conversation these days. They don't want to be associated with the likes of her.

---

Quote:

---

Did you read all of the articles you linked to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I've only ever met one women in RL who claims she's a feminist. She's an asshole.
I've only ever met one person online who claims they're a feminist. I'm assuming it's a female. Female or male it's repulsive.

---

Quote:

---

I'm sure there are other women I've met that would identify as a Feminist if they were asked about it. The point is that they don't hang their entire existence on that and any other type of identity politics. The only women these days that everyone knows are feminists are truly miserable people.

---

Quote:

---

Look at Wishy. She is identity politics personified. Feminist? Check. Athiest? Check. White apologist? Check.
How do I know all of that? lol... A completely rhetorical question since 90% of hateful posts have something to do with one of those issues.

---

Quote:

---

She'll go around calling everybody else a nazi ...

---

Quote:

---

... behave as poorly as she wants to, abuse other people constantly, and then cry like a baby about everything and play the victim because.... vagina.

---

Quote:

---

She's disgusting.

---

Quote:

---

That's why most women don't want to talk about Feminism in regular conversation these days.

---

Quote:

---

They don't want to be associated with the likes of her.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:




Huh.... wouldn't ya know it....

I don't see Russia at all on those graphs.

Take note, Democrats looking to win seats in 2018.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:


You are a part of the most privileged women that the history of the planet has ever seen, and you constantly whine and bitch about this every single day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:



What I take issue with is how people like you use those stats to attack every human who has a penis. Most men are NOT like that. We do NOT live in Man-Grope-istan. MOST men would lose their jobs, whatever limited status they may have, a chance at any future jobs, their families and more for doing anything like what you're talking about.

Look at your posts. Every one of them drips with misandry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Actually, she just dislikes 'people'. Because. people. That's her schtick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:



What I take issue with is how people like you use those stats to attack every human who has a penis. Most men are NOT like that. We do NOT live in Man-Grope-istan. MOST men would lose their jobs, whatever limited status they may have, a chance at any future jobs, their families and more for doing anything like what you're talking about.

Look at your posts. Every one of them drips with misandry.

---

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE NOT GETTING, YET AGAIN. If you haven't been reading the news for the last two months beyond Weinstein, you'd know it's a MUCH MUCH bigger problem than what you think it is. It's such a problem that many women give up talking about it because EVERY woman has a story of how a man's sex drive or violence has affected their lives. I know of at least two dozen women who have been raped or molested. EVERY WOMAN ON THIS PLANET DOES TOO. MEN DON'T LOSE THEIR JOBS, THEY GET HIGH-FIVED.


You can scream "misandry" all you want but it will NEVER change the FACT FACT FACT that males are more violent than females. WE live in Man-grope-istan, you live IN DENIAL.

I'm not posting that stats again, I've made my point a thousand times over. You have YET to provide any evidence to the contrary.

DONE WITH YOU.

---

Quote:

---

Corruption Of Government Officials Ranked Americans' Top Fear Of 2017

With Halloween just around corner, a recent survey shows what really keeps Americans awake at night. The Chapman University Survey of American Fears polled 1,207 U.S. adults on their level of fear across 80 different categories ranging from crime to personal anxieties and natural disasters. As in previous years, corruption of government officials was top by a significant margin in 2017 with 74.5 percent of U.S. adults saying it makes them either "afraid" or "very afraid".

This year's ranking reflects the political unrest and uncertainty brought about by Donald Trump's election to the presidency.

---

Quote:

---

75% in U.S. See Widespread Government Corruption

---

Quote:

---

I just call it discrimination. There is no "reverse" about it.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

Part of the problem is the use of that word "reverse" before discrimination or racism or sexism or anything else. It's loosely tied to the pervasive myth that racism is prejudice + power, so it is impossible for anybody to be racist against white people.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

There is not a single law or protection the government grants men that women aren't also granted. I can name more than several that men do not benefit from in 2017.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I just call it discrimination. There is no "reverse" about it.- Agreed. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter which direction it's flowing. Also, not too keen on the designation "hate" crime, either. It's either a crime, or it's not. I don't see any "extra-special-crime" designation being useful.

---

Quote:

---

I just call it discrimination. There is no "reverse" about it.- SIX

Agreed. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter which direction it's flowing. Also, not too keen on the designation "hate" crime, either. It's either a crime, or it's not. I don't see any "extra-special-crime" designation being useful.- SIGNY

Well, that's the thing. "hate" before crime is useful, just as "reverse" before any "ism" is useful to certain groups. It's simply a double standard that all other races have on whites. It's also a double standard that gays have over straights. It's also a double standard that women have over men.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

I think I know what you're saying, and I agree. It IS possible to be racist against whites, I've seen it all the time and had my "whiteness" held against me.- SIGNY

Well there you go. Now imagine being a man and having that also held against you.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

You can? I can't think of a single statute or law that allows women more privilege than men. If you have some examples, let me know. BUT if you're going to bring up the whole "abortion" thing again, I will flatly disagree with you. Since women bear the social and professional burdens and medical risk of pregnancy - and there is no way for men to take that on themselves (For example, what if a pregnancy gets in the way of a job or promotion? Is the father of the baby going to be able to undo that lost opportunity?) then men have- IMHO- no say in the pregnancy or its outcome. "Donating" sperm simply isn't taking on enough responsibility to ensure any kind of authority, and in my book responsibility should = authority.- SIGNY

"Donating" sperm is just as bad as using any of those other terms. If that's really how you look at it, then how can I even argue the point?

The way I look at it, it should be one way or the other. Give women 100% choice in the matter, but they do not have the ability to come after a man for any financial support. OR, make men completely accountable for the child after the fact in all cases, but also give men a say on whether the abortion takes place.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

But that's not the only law or privlidge ...- SIX

---

Quote:

---

... that women have on men. I've talked about them before, but here's a few.

1. At birth, a male has no say whether or not his parents can mutilate his reproductive organ. Women have that protection.

---

Quote:

---

(It is unimportant whether or not you believe circumcision to be genital mutilation. I do, and many other people do).- SIX

---

Quote:

---

2. Men have to register for the draft. Women don't.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

3. In the military, women are held to lower standards of physical ability than men are.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

4. In a divorce it is always assumed that the children will be with the mother. It is the burden of the father to make a case and pay the legal fees and make the choice to drag his children through what will likely be a very long and drawn out process that will harm the children psychologically. In cases where the mother is simply unstable this puts the father in the no-win situation of harming the children either way.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

5. There are battered wives shelters. There aren't any for men. Vocal feminists will and have argued and protested against Men's Rights Activists who fight against this.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

6. Women have the right to exclusive tax benefits for being business owners.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I agree with you about that. The concept of "hate crime" means that some people are afforded more protection under the law than others, which is clearly discriminatory.

---

Quote:

---

I agree with you about that. The concept of "hate crime" means that some people are afforded more protection under the law than others, which is clearly discriminatory. - SIGNY
Yep. - SIX

---

Quote:

---

I don't have to imagine, since being female is constantly being held against ME. Can we reach a mutual understanding on this point? That sexism is uncomfortable no matter which way it flows?- SIGNY

You say that, but I don't understand what you mean by that. I've never experienced this happening in retail jobs or even in the professional jobs that I've held. We must have just been working in different environments or something. - SIX

---

Quote:

---

I'm a white male who is almost 40 without a college degree. It is extremely hard for somebody like me to get a job these days- SIX

---

Quote:

---

... because I don't fill up a spot on any race or gender quotas. There might not be laws that state that you have to hire a certain amount of "diversity", but there certainly are big tax incentives to do so.- SIX

There are? - SIGNY

---

Quote:

---

The way I look at it, it should be one way or the other. Give women 100% choice in the matter, but they do not have the ability to come after a man for any financial support. OR, make men completely accountable for the child after the fact in all cases, but also give men a say on whether the abortion takes place.- SIX

Sounds fair. I pick option #1.- SIGNY

That's progress. It's not the option I'd prefer, but that's the price of negotiations. I realize that not everyone in the world views abortion as murdering babies, so I can't use that as an argument. But I do think that relinquishing the ability to go after men for child support would suffice in making the woman's choice of what to do with her body deemed as a fair choice. (Because they way it is now, it's not only the choice she has about her body, but the very livelihood of the man in question for the next 18 or so years)- SIX

---

Quote:

---

Now you're moving the goalposts. We were talking about laws or statutes, not custom or practice.- SIGNY

Not moving the goalposts. I said this before. Not much of a difference between a law and a practice if the practice happens 100% of the time and the outcome is expected. - SIX

---

Quote:

---

You can thank the Jewish lobby for that. Since Nazis used circumcision as a means of identifying Jewish males, Jews here agitated to have circumcision made the standard practice so that their population could never be identified amongst all of the other males. - SIGNY

It is unimportant whether or not you believe circumcision to be genital mutilation. I do, and many other people do.- SIX

As do I. I think it's a barbaric custom foisted on us by Jews and should be done away with. How do we go about it?- SIGNY

I'm not really looking for a history lesson here. I'm glad that you agree that it should be done away with though. I don't know how to do away with it. I'm not an MRA and I don't subscribe to any type of group like that, but I do know it's one of the things that is high on their list of priorities.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, you're right. Abolish registration- SIGNY

Good enough for me.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

Not a law or statute. But now you're putting women in a no-win situation. You want them to be drafted just like men and treated just like men when it's clear that women are smaller than men (on the average) with less muscle mass. Either (1) change the requirements so that women can meet them (for example, require less ammo which weighs less*) or (2) create tiered assignments/duties based on something like height and muscle mass to account for different physiologies in a non-sexist way.- SIGNY

I actually don't want them to be drafted just like men, or treated just like men. That's supposedly what they've fought for. I was just using the draft as one of the most hypocritical things about the feminist movement. It's all about equality until we talk about the draft.

---

Quote:

---

If the draft is eliminated, this point is moot anyhow.

There have been plenty of men who have been deemed unfit for the military, based off of physical attributes. In that time the same standard of physical ability has been applied, no matter the situation. I don't see why the fact that women are now in the military should necessitate changing that system, since we're all equal.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

I'd imagine that breaking down people further into groups and testing them that way would be a lot more paperwork and cost more money. Our military expenses are obscene as it is. I don't think we need to do something that would probably create a whole new agency to keep track of. Male or female, you need to reach the same standard since everyone will be relying on everyone else regardless of gender.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

* As I understand it, even in "fire groups" which is the lowest level of front line combat organization there is a division of labor. You usually have the gunner, the ammo-carrier/ back-watcher, and the spotter. Now, carrying ammo prolly requires a strong back, but smaller people could be very effective spotters.- SIGNY

I do get your point. In a perfect world something like this makes sense. I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of the entire situation as it is. You talk about me arguing that everyone should be a part of the draft AND that women (who many of which presumably would be drafted) would then be forced to those higher physical standards.

What I'm saying is, in the system as it is now, this is just another example of women getting ALL of the preferred treatment. They DON'T have to register for the draft, and they DON'T have to be held to the same standards.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

There is also the fact that we haven't had a draft in my entire life, and unless the entire world goes to shit it wouldn't never happen again because wars are fought much differently with today's technology. Either making women sign up for the draft or eliminating the draft altogether would really be nothing more than a symbolic gesture.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

Not a law or statute as far as I know, but certainly an unfair practice. BOTH parents should be evaluated for fitness.- SIGNY

No. Not a law or a statute as far as I know either, but it absolutely happens 100% of the time. The only exception being if the woman has a easily damning history of mental problems, drug addiction, spousal or child abuse, etc.

I lived through it. That was my childhood. It's likely the largest reason that I have no interest in ever getting married.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

This is not only NOT a law or statute, it has nothing to do with the legal system whatsoever. Men need to get together and set these up for themselves, just like women had to get together, raise money, raise awareness, and set up shelters for each other.- SIGNY

Read the report I linked. It has a LOT to do with federal funds, of which none go to mens shelters and all go to women's shelters. There is also an extremely high suicide rate among men who go through this, especially those who are forced to leave the home, some of which become homeless. - SIX

---

Quote:

---

6. Women have the right to exclusive tax benefits for being business owners. -SIX

They do? Like what? That's sure a new one on me!

SIX: https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/business-resources-
for-women/information-on-women-owned-business-opportunities-assistance

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hey SIX, thanks for your detailed and on-point response.

---

No problem. I don't know what good this is doing anything, but it's nice to talk it out with a reasonable person.

Quote:

---

I agree with you about that. The concept of "hate crime" means that some people are afforded more protection under the law than others, which is clearly discriminatory. - SIGNY
Yep. - SIX

I actually heard this brought up by a law professor in CA a few months ago, when "they" were thinking of adding yet-another category of crimes to the list of potential "hate" crimes. I DO hope that means "they're" re-thinking the whole concept. - SIGNY

---

It's nice to dream, but somehow I doubt it. Probably going to make it worse.

Quote:

---

I don't have to imagine, since being female is constantly being held against ME. Can we reach a mutual understanding on this point? That sexism is uncomfortable no matter which way it flows?- SIGNY

You say that, but I don't understand what you mean by that. I've never experienced this happening in retail jobs or even in the professional jobs that I've held. We must have just been working in different environments or something. - SIX

Yes, definitely. For example, I was prevented from field work by an old-fashioned supervisor who told me quite openly that "We've always had a woman in the lab". He thought he was doing me a favor, I wasn't mad about it because he was just an nice old-fashioned guy from Lithuania, but it sure was frustrating! KIKI experienced being told that she wouldn't be accepted into medical school because she was a woman. Even today, many engineering and science building have male and female bathrooms on alternate floors because they were originally built only with male bathrooms. So you wouldn't see discrimination against women in "traditionally" female jobs, like teaching or retail or secretarial work or nursing, but once you get outside of those areas then yes, you do. - SIGNY

---

Well you definitely work in a higher level of things than I ever have. Maybe it's something among highly educated people. I've had a couple of jobs peaking at around 60k/yr. plus benefits, but I've never had to wear a lab coat. I've personally never seen any sexist or particularly any anti-female behavior at any place I've worked.

It seems strange to me that this would be the case though. Usually it's the college types who are against that type of behavior. My suspicion is that's the "old dogs" doing it in positions like yours and the landscape is about to have a major shift.

Quote:

---

I'm a white male who is almost 40 without a college degree. It is extremely hard for somebody like me to get a job these days- SIX

It's extremely hard for ANYbody to get a job these days! You're either too young or too old, or too raw or "overqualified", or too good-looking or not good-looking enough, etc.

But I have been part of over a couple of HUNDRED screening interviews and a couple dozen HIRING decisions in my career (it was a "hire by committee" kind of thing) and aside from technical or personality considerations (for example we work in a cooperative lab where we have to share equipment, and extremely territorial people simply wouldn't work out) the only discrimination that I have heard openly expressed more than once is against people over 50. As in "Why would we want to train a person when they'll just retire in ten years anyway?" Seems awfully short-sighted to me. Most 50-year-olds bring a wealth of experience to a job.

By focusing on things like that, we're made to feel as if the problem is with each other, when in reality the problem is NOT ENOUGH JOBS CREATED BY THE SO-CALLED JOB CREATORS. And I can get into the whys and wherefores of THAT, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. - SIGNY

---

Yeah.... We're going way out of bounds here now. That goes with my overpopulation discussion which is a completely different topic I don't want to even get into here.

Quote:

---

... because I don't fill up a spot on any race or gender quotas. There might not be laws that state that you have to hire a certain amount of "diversity", but there certainly are big tax incentives to do so.- SIX

There are? - SIGNY

So, did I miss something about tax incentives to hire by gender or race? - SIGNY

---

I'm assuming it's been a long time since you filled out an application at a low level position like a retail job.

They ask a lot of questions about your sex, your race, if you are or were recently on food stamps or TANF, if you served in the military.

Large corporations get tax incentives the more people they hire that tick off any of those boxes. I'm too busy ATM to look for that now, but I've been wanting to respond to this very long post all day and didn't want to put it off any longer.

Quote:

---

The way I look at it, it should be one way or the other. Give women 100% choice in the matter, but they do not have the ability to come after a man for any financial support. OR, make men completely accountable for the child after the fact in all cases, but also give men a say on whether the abortion takes place.- SIX

Sounds fair. I pick option #1.- SIGNY

That's progress. It's not the option I'd prefer, but that's the price of negotiations. I realize that not everyone in the world views abortion as murdering babies, so I can't use that as an argument. But I do think that relinquishing the ability to go after men for child support would suffice in making the woman's choice of what to do with her body deemed as a fair choice. (Because they way it is now, it's not only the choice she has about her body, but the very livelihood of the man in question for the next 18 or so years)- SIX

Indeed. The decision to have a baby, or not, potentially affects the father as well.

---

Thank you. It's nice to have somebody recognize that fact.

Quote:

---

Now you're moving the goalposts. We were talking about laws or statutes, not custom or practice.- SIGNY

Not moving the goalposts. I said this before. Not much of a difference between a law and a practice if the practice happens 100% of the time and the outcome is expected. - SIX

That throws open the discussion again. I was hoping to limit the discussion to laws and statutes, which are documented, as opposed to practices and customs, which can be argued forever because they're hard to prove.

---

Yes and no. I do believe that the ones I'm bringing up here are kind of "Universal Truths" that don't really need to be proven. Is there any in particular I've brought up that you feel this is not the case?

Quote:

---

You can thank the Jewish lobby for that. Since Nazis used circumcision as a means of identifying Jewish males, Jews here agitated to have circumcision made the standard practice so that their population could never be identified amongst all of the other males. - SIGNY

It is unimportant whether or not you believe circumcision to be genital mutilation. I do, and many other people do.- SIX

As do I. I think it's a barbaric custom foisted on us by Jews and should be done away with. How do we go about it?- SIGNY

I'm not really looking for a history lesson here. I'm glad that you agree that it should be done away with though. I don't know how to do away with it. I'm not an MRA and I don't subscribe to any type of group like that, but I do know it's one of the things that is high on their list of priorities.- SIX

I can't imagine why anyone would be against ending circumcision. I know doctors who say that circumcision prevents penile cancer, but really, the answer is washing well. Males can always get it later, if they're so inclined, when they reach the age of majority. - SIGNY

---

I don't know why anybody would be against it either. I actually never heard any Feminist groups that are against ending it. All I'm doing by bringing it up is showing how Women in general are more revered, especially when it comes to government protections and general practices in all spots in life.

The moment a male is born, part of his reproductive organs are chopped off.

Think about that for a moment.

We gasp in horror to hear that this is a regular practice on women among Middle Eastern cultures, but we don't even bat an eye when it comes to doing it to males right here.

Quote:

---

Yeah, you're right. Abolish registration- SIGNY

Good enough for me.- SIX
Yay! - SIGNY

---

Quote:

---

Not a law or statute. But now you're putting women in a no-win situation. You want them to be drafted just like men and treated just like men when it's clear that women are smaller than men (on the average) with less muscle mass. Either (1) change the requirements so that women can meet them (for example, require less ammo which weighs less*) or (2) create tiered assignments/duties based on something like height and muscle mass to account for different physiologies in a non-sexist way.- SIGNY

I actually don't want them to be drafted just like men, or treated just like men. That's supposedly what they've fought for. I was just using the draft as one of the most hypocritical things about the feminist movement. It's all about equality until we talk about the draft. -SIX

I don't know what the women's movement position is on the draft. - SIGNY

---

Whoopie Goldberg gets it.

That's a sentence I just said.

Quote:

---

If the draft is eliminated, this point is moot anyhow.

There have been plenty of men who have been deemed unfit for the military, based off of physical attributes. In that time the same standard of physical ability has been applied, no matter the situation. I don't see why the fact that women are now in the military should necessitate changing that system, since we're all equal.- SIX

Maybe not "unfit" in general, but can you really expect a 5' 100-pound person to perform the same as a 6' 200-pound person, no matter which sex? - SIGNY

---

No, but for basic military service the 200 lb 6' person has an exceedingly easy time passing the basic requirements. I wrestled at 97 lbs Freshman year and only 125 lbs by Senior year. In 7th and 8th grade I was only 75 lbs. I had no problem getting the Presidential Physical Fitness award 6 years in a row starting in Jr. High.

The standard for males is fairly low for basic training. Actually, lowering that further for women now could be a bad thing for women if the draft was enacted and they were forced to be a part of it. If it was kept to the minimum male requirements a lot of women would be able to get out of service by not qualifying. But since it is lower, those chances are a lot more slim.

Quote:

---

I'd imagine that breaking down people further into groups and testing them that way would be a lot more paperwork and cost more money. Our military expenses are obscene as it is. I don't think we need to do something that would probably create a whole new agency to keep track of. Male or female, you need to reach the same standard since everyone will be relying on everyone else regardless of gender.- SIX

Okay, then screen people out based on that standard. But I think you'd be leaving a lot of talent on the table. - SIGNY

---

True, but for the really talented they have alternative options. My brother tested into Military Intelligence. He said that Basic Training was a breeze. He was no athlete. I've never heard anybody say that about basic training in my life.

Quote:

---

* As I understand it, even in "fire groups" which is the lowest level of front line combat organization there is a division of labor. You usually have the gunner, the ammo-carrier/ back-watcher, and the spotter. Now, carrying ammo prolly requires a strong back, but smaller people could be very effective spotters.- SIGNY

I do get your point. In a perfect world something like this makes sense. I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of the entire situation as it is. You talk about me arguing that everyone should be a part of the draft AND that women (who many of which presumably would be drafted) would then be forced to those higher physical standards.

What I'm saying is, in the system as it is now, this is just another example of women getting ALL of the preferred treatment. They DON'T have to register for the draft, and they DON'T have to be held to the same standards.- SIX

Agreed. - SIGNY

---

Thank you again.

Quote:

---

There is also the fact that we haven't had a draft in my entire life, and unless the entire world goes to shit it wouldn't never happen again because wars are fought much differently with today's technology. Either making women sign up for the draft or eliminating the draft altogether would really be nothing more than a symbolic gesture.- SIX

But symbolism is important. - SIGNY

---

Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Not a law or statute as far as I know, but certainly an unfair practice. BOTH parents should be evaluated for fitness.- SIGNY

No. Not a law or a statute as far as I know either, but it absolutely happens 100% of the time. The only exception being if the woman has a easily damning history of mental problems, drug addiction, spousal or child abuse, etc.

I lived through it. That was my childhood. It's likely the largest reason that I have no interest in ever getting married.- SIX

There's an interesting story there, I'm sure. - SIGNY

---

Oh, there is. Add to it having to deal with my brother's brain hemorrhage right around that time and it's even more unique. It's not worth telling if there isn't a happy ending though. Only time will tell.

Quote:

---

This is not only NOT a law or statute, it has nothing to do with the legal system whatsoever. Men need to get together and set these up for themselves, just like women had to get together, raise money, raise awareness, and set up shelters for each other.- SIGNY

Read the report I linked. It has a LOT to do with federal funds, of which none go to mens shelters and all go to women's shelters. There is also an extremely high suicide rate among men who go through this, especially those who are forced to leave the home, some of which become homeless. - SIX

You're right. It's unfair. - SIGNY

---

It's a pattern.

Quote:

---

6. Women have the right to exclusive tax benefits for being business owners. -SIX

They do? Like what? That's sure a new one on me!

SIX: https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/business-resources-
for-women/information-on-women-owned-business-opportunities-assistance

I'll look into this. - SIGNY

---

OK

Quote:

---

There is another aspect that you haven't touched on, and it's the whole idea of "protected classes". We are made to take a class every year on discriminatory behavior which puts our employer at legal liability, and the "protected classes" have expanded to include sex, sexual preference, race, ethnicity, religion etc etc. The only person NOT protected is the white 20-50 y/o hetero male, who can (technically) be the butt of endless jokes and harassment and not be able to appeal to any Equal Opportunity Board for redress. I personally find that unfair. My employer has more or less superseded that law by demanding professional behavior from anyone to anyone; and you can be fired for unprofessional behavior. IN PRACTICE, women are still be groped, ogled, and marginalized; and suspected gays are definitely excluded from promotion; but I'm glad that our organization demands professional behavior from everyone, at least by written policy.

---

Quote:

---

Honestly though, do you really have women being groped in your workplace?

---

Quote:

---

I've worked around some pretty shady characters in some of my jobs and I've never seen that behavior before. I'm starting to think this is a middle class/rich class problem or something.

---

Quote:

---

Don't you guys have an HR department that takes care of these things?

---

Quote:

---

I completely reject any poll that states that 13.2% of college age men would rape.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I think maybe kids should stop drinking so much at college.

Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if kids were able to drink with parental supervision at 16 like they do in other countries.


No. Men obviously aren't entirely blameless. You know I don't deal in absolutes.

---

Quote:

---

I just reject polls which state that 1 in every 5 women on college campuses will be raped and that 13.2% of men on campus say that they would rape.

Define rape.

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I view rape as threating violence for it, or unwittingly drugging somebody.

If everybody is drinking and sex happens, that's not rape. Don't drink so much you don't like the decision you made the night before.

If we're all equal, and we're talking about strong and independent women here, take some fucking responsibility for your own actions and choices. I

I've slept with a few women who I NEVER would have slept with unless I was plastered. Some of them because of their looks, but others because they were batshit crazy too. I wasn't raped. I was just stupid and drunk.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---