Grrrrr...lying pool company and worker (Phoenix: eat, ranking, deal)

[locoenlacabeza]

Originally Posted by movin'on

Yeah, and I keep asking you what the percentage is, and you fail to see what this indicates - that there ARE differences between the sexes. Look, let's take it down to a very basic level. Half of the armed forces are not comprised of women. Therefore, this is a difference. Furthermore, not as many as a PERCENTAGE are in combat and this does reflect something. Whether you want to argue that in 2005 Bush said women should not be in combat (and I think you are a Bush supporter?), if he's the President isn't he supposed to be smarter than you, and recognize the differences?

First, with an electoral military service you can not make comparisons because of men and women. If given the choice any one can choose to do anything. I can choose to go to work on an oil rig if I feel up to it. And men can and do choose to be hair stylists. You are making futile points in this argument.

Secondly, just because someone is president hardly makes him any more intelligent than anyone else. And that hardly qualifies him to be able to dictate whether or not women should be in combat.

[movin'on]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Well - too bad.

Many so called "girlie girls" have volunteered to go and help our troops - as have many men (myself included) - and funny thing - The President has had no comments nor complaints about the "girlie girls" going to Iraq or Afganistan -

Nor, has Bush complained about the brave women in combat in theatre either

You are misinformed -

No, I am not. Bush said no women in combat in 2005. Please cite your sources. This theatre thing is weird.

BTW, how do you find time with two boats, six cars, and two houses to do all of this?

[movin'on]

Originally Posted by locoenlacabeza

First, with an electoral military service you can not make comparisons because of men and women. If given the choice any one can choose to do anything. I can choose to go to work on an oil rig if I feel up to it. And men can and do choose to be hair stylists. You are making futile points in this argument.

Secondly, just because someone is president hardly makes him any more intelligent than anyone else. And that hardly qualifies him to be able to dictate whether or not women should be in combat.

Well, I don't see you running for president. Obviously someone who is smart enough to be elected for two consecutive terms isn't exactly a dummy. So he must recognize differences that you cannot.

[locoenlacabeza]

hahahaha now you're just being silly saying that Bush isn't a dummy. As well as grasping at straws trying to find ways to validate your point of view.

[movin'on]

Originally Posted by locoenlacabeza

hahahaha now you're just being silly saying that Bush isn't a dummy. As well as grasping at straws trying to find ways to validate your point of view.

How so? You think he isn't smart for finding some way to hijack the whitehouse for two consecutive terms? And my point of view IS valid. Go ahead and post the stats re: women in combat. I made the statement that no more than 5 to 10% are in combat and I am right and that there is a reason for this, however, I am focusing primarily on the numbers. That's the only statement I made. Go back and look it up.

[movin'on]

Originally Posted by Subie

Um, why does it even matter how new the data is? It's recent. it's the 'percentages of proof' you wanted proving woman can be just as physically able as men. 2008 stats or not.

And speak for yourself. Just because you can't apply pressure to a flipping pool brush because you might break a nail, doesn't mean a good majority of women can't either.

Please. It's not THAT hard.... if you really want to go there in your 'housewife girly girl' mentality, you should know how to apply pressure for a good scrubdown anyways. Housework anyone?

I don't like housework, but I do know the importance of current data. When I make a statement that there are no more than 5 to 10% of women in combat, I am referring to now, hence I expect the most recent data. I wouldn't presume to go back to 2005 and use that data. And LOL, women do NOT have the physical strength that men do, in general, and I challenge you to prove me wrong, which was also my assertion.

[Wishin4sun]

Nvm

[locoenlacabeza]

Originally Posted by Wishin4sun

Why are you afraid to admit that women & Men are in fact different. To say that they aren't is so ignorant it's not even worth explaining. I am proud to be a women & that I am different from men no shame in admitting that here. Maybe if people would get over themselves in proving otherwise we could stop putting all these young boys on drugs because they are acting like little boys. This thinking is destroying our children & I am about sick of it.

I do not believe anyone is arguing the fact that men and women are different, the OP was saying that women are incapable of doing certain stereotypical male jobs, which is wherein the original argument lies, particularly pertaining to her pool. Why is it that a woman is incapable of cleaning or brushing (to be more specific) a pool.
The topic ( had you read all 6 pages) then turned to the OP making the statement that women are not in combat nor should they be.
She has asked for statistics proving that in 2008 ( which most accurate data would likely be 2007 for now) that women on the front lines is more than 5-10%, which is likely true because the real possibility is that women probably only make up 5-10% of the entire armed forces. She was given statistics and they were not good enough, but yet has yet to reveal her own sites for her data.

[Wishin4sun]

That's why I edited it to NVM

[movin'on]

Originally Posted by locoenlacabeza

I do not believe anyone is arguing the fact that men and women are different, the OP was saying that women are incapable of doing certain stereotypical male jobs, which is wherein the original argument lies, particularly pertaining to her pool. Why is it that a woman is incapable of cleaning or brushing (to be more specific) a pool.
The topic ( had you read all 6 pages) then turned to the OP making the statement that women are not in combat nor should they be.
She has asked for statistics proving that in 2008 ( which most accurate data would likely be 2007 for now) that women on the front lines is more than 5-10%, which is likely true because the real possibility is that women probably only make up 5-10% of the entire armed forces. She was given statistics and they were not good enough, but yet has yet to reveal her own sites for her data.

First of all, I did not say women cannot do certain jobs. I said, in general, they lack the physical strength men do and therefore will not have the same strength to brush a pool down.

Currently, as of 2008, 15% of the armed forces are women, which would validate or even over estimate the number I quoted who are in combat, as we know that not 2/3rd of those enlisted are in combat. Here is my link to a RECENT article...

Women's combat roles are likely to be on next president's agenda - Los Angeles Times (broken link)

And yet another informative article. In Desert Storm 7% of women were deployed. I guess my stats are pretty close to what I said, assuming things are going along the same. I couldn't find more recent data as to actual percentage of women IN COMBAT, but now we at least know what percentage makes up the armed forces.

1 in 7 U.S. Military Personnel in Iraq Is Female