I had to google that. So basically we generalize women based on ideal characteristics?

What rock have you been hiding under?

Plenty of women are going to school for 'advanced' job fields.. sure, not as many as there are men, but that's steadily changing.. for several reasons.

Many women in this day and age are realizing they don't want a man to support them, because then they are somewhat trapped in the relationship if it turns south. It also allows her to feel free to pursue a man based entirely off who he is, instead of what he does, since she knows she can provide for herself.

Many are also reaching the point of viewing it as more of a state of equality in the dating world, whether it be an equal splitting of the bills, or "I got it last time, you get it this time" sort of deal.. because the "guy pays for everything" dating scene has become little more than prostitution. There is the expectation that if the guy drops $50-$100 on dinner and a movie (.. disturbingly easy to do), that the girl is going to put out.

Now, I will grant that "women" (as an entity, not in specific) are often not seeking equality.. some ways we can point this out:
Womens scholarships. (there are no scholarships that I am aware of that are available only to men)
Womens gyms. (If someone tries to open a mens gym, they will be shut down)
The draft.
I'm sure I could think of others if I felt like it, too.

I'm on the side of women being allowed in combat provided the standards are not lowered. If there is one thing that irritates me is seeing other women who preach "Equal rights" and then whine about how the standard is too high and demand they be lowered or saying it is not a role for women to be in (hypocrites).

As for the draft, I hate to say it but I think women should be signed up for the draft as well. Equal rights equal responsibility.

Do I want to sign up for the draft, hell no. Am I going to voluntarily sign up for the draft, no it is not required for me and I do not agree with the wars we are in right now. Am I probably being hypocritical, yes but I'm not going to complain too much if it ever does change to be so. Equal rights, equal responsibility.

I'd rather not be put on the battlefield, but my background in computer science should hopefully put me in a more supportive rule and not in direct combat. That and I sure wouldn't be able to life up a 250 pound man.

And there's the thing.
Even if we DON'T put women on the front lines.. there are plenty of non-combat positions, that in the event of a draft could be filled by a woman to free up "combat worthy men".

I thought us women could already do those jobs, and it was front line stuff we couldn't?

You can, if you sign up for the military.

What Thunderstone and I were talking about is signing up for the draft. At age 18, all US males have to sign up for the draft ("Selective service or some shit like that), which basically us saying "If the Us ever gets super desperate for soldiers, I'll sign up." .. mind you, it's not optional. It's illegal to not sign up for the draft and it's illegal to dodge the draft in the event that one gets enacted.

Women, however, are exempt from the draft.. which is bullshit under the cries of "equal rights", because that should also mean "equal responsibilities".

I was pointing out that, without changing the policy on women in combat.. women being signed up for the draft is a valuable thing for the country. :)

Ah right, that makes sense - and I agree.

I grew up in NZ, and no draft here. :P

Yeah, basically. Some women/a lot of women don't want equality, but they think they do.
Things are changing fast now though (hopefully).

As for the draft... I mean yeah it would be fair, but I think that's at least a couple of decades away. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

This - unfortunately, this happens in a lot of situations, completely inrelated as well.

the ukraine already has dolphins in their navy...if they can teach a fish to wield a knife we should be able to teach a woman to shoot without giving them frilly pink guns and moving the target closer. Let them die on the front lines(as long as they can keep up and aren't a liability) instead of taking away all the cushy jobs flying drones from the men
I vote for gender equality :)

(edit- but that protective instinct thing definitely exists probably a mix of both social and biological reasons....so through no fault of their own it may end up a liability anyway to have women there. http://suppressioncomic.com/comics/2012-08-30-wretched.png its pretty much a near certainty the male members will take alot dumber risks trying to save a captured or wounded female than another guy...then again our army does the saving private Ryan thing anyway so how bad could it get we already take irrational(pretty much just in hindsight tho but isn't it always?) risks in those situations even without females involved.

edit- so yeah, just go with the first thing i typed(if it really became that big a problem I guess they could have separate but equal squads of all one gender). as as long as they don't try to lower the bar or have a quota let women have their share of dangerous jobs.)

Let me elaborate because I can see how it'd be easy to confuse what I'm saying with the 'income shares' system. (Anyway, the 'income shares' is for bureaucrats to stick their hand into two incomes instead of one because all this transfer of money is a big industry and those bureaucrats make money from it.) Who decides what the proper amount of child support is? Certainly not the parents.

The rub is that there is no accountability for the money. What if it is spent on things not child support? The courts might say that purchasing a new car (say a porche) with that money constitutes how life would be if the kid had a nuclear family.

How many women are thrown into prison for being unable to pay for child support (even though there isn't supposed to be a debtor's prison?). Where are the women who are unable to enter and exit the country at will due to child support obligations?

What is 'backwards' about saying the clear fact that women disagree with women? The biggest opposition to women in combat came from women because they feared the draft. I imagine the draft perspective was more in people's minds back during the days of World War 2, Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.

Men would LOVE to have women go into combat. Men would also LOVE for women to make a ton of money at whatever job they choose. Men would absolutely love it if more women became engineers. Men want women to enter his world. That is why we kept building all these libraries and inventing things to free women from traditional drudgeries of chores. But yet, women aren't entering his world to man's great disappointment.

How many men here would like more women to play video games? I'm sure many would. How about more women game developers? That would be cool too. But where are they? It takes computer science skills to be a game developer, and many women keep choosing not to go that route.

The more women in combat means the LESS men in combat. Men would love that. So why aren't women doing it?

Men are conscripted; women are not. When an actual war comes, men will be sent to fight it whether they choose to want to or not. Women have always historically had the option not to participate (and they choose not to do so).

Legally, men have no influence over their reproduction. Men can only have children that women want them to have. (Anonymous male sperm donors are even getting hit by child support retroactively.)

Even though men work all their lives and women work much less, on average (or not at all), men are poorer than women.

Men retire later than woman (even though, due to lower life expectancy, they have a claim to retire earlier).

Around 80% of consumer spending is controlled by women. Shouldn't we have some 'equality' here?

I'm not trying to paint this in a man vs woman type of way. The purpose is only to illustrate how much power women have consolidated.

The question that blows up the discussion is not about women in combat but women being conscripted. If women are going to be in combat, they should be conscripted just like the men. But you will never see that happen.

heh, heh...not quite. he probably means that people(mostly females) claim patriarchy because they see men at the top but fail or choose not to look at the men at the bottom. Alot of ceos are male. Even more of the shit jobs where you might die are even higher percent male. In the past Men may be at the top because they're "earning for two +" ( A much higher rate of wives are supported by husbands than the other way around and so the higher paying jobs were generally reserved to men with families to support.) but Women aren't at the bottom they're more in the upper middle with the "cushy" jobs. You simply don't take a female and assign her to the part of an oilrig where she could be crushed. If possible you don't let her on the oil rig at all and have her manage the pipeline from shore or something(a better job but men are more disposable so what can you do). They(as a group not individuals) also don't get to fall off ladders work in a slaughter house die in a mine shovel shit or slip while shingling a wet roof ect. glass ceiling preventing climbing to the top came with a glass floor preventing going too far down... but who notices a floor anyway.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/10/implications-of-the-apex-fallacy/
http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/what-is-the-apex-fallacy/

as far as I know thats mostly the use of that term.

but more generally you still got it a bit off. the phrase would be not ideal traits its most obvious.
"Apex fallacy is the idea that we assign the characteristics of the highest visibility members of a group to all members of that group."

So he was saying it wasn't a case of men keeping women down but one of women aren't allowed to die or have the real crap jobs(not that I'm saying military is a crap job...just that it gets lumped in due to the low pay and high death risk)
edit-(was saying it was glass floor not glass ceiling is probably a better way to have said it..oh well)-/edit
________________________________
I don't really believe this or not one way or the other. just explaining it to you since you asked
(I am better at google)

haha, I worked in a kindergarten for over 10 years, and yes, I am a male. There is to few men working in kindergartens and it is a big problem.

The reasons you do not find men "on the floor" in the kindergarten is

1 - it is low paid
2 - it is low status
3 - it is considered "women work" see, point 2
4 - men who start in kindergarten quickly move on to managerial positions
5 - it is actually very hard work

I wish there where 50%-50% split in kindergarten, the kids need it, all child care work should have more men. But until it get the status it deserves (for some reason taking care of the next generation has always been considered low status...), and as long as people have the views you just exhibited, it will not happen - sadly. Kindergarten is just not seen as a good career move, basically.

Women probably never will take part in covert operations in Islamic countries, though :P Too easy to blow the cover :P