U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2019, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
32,496 posts, read 9,611,644 times
Reputation: 30772

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
That's absolutely NOT the reason why China changed to a 2-child policy. That stuff about gender imbalance and Chinese men not finding mates was just a spiteful nonsense rumour that got started in USA around 2005 and then it spread via internet. Here are the real reasons why China changed to a 2-child policy so that SOME families (not all) are now allowed or are subsidized for two children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy


BTW, the United Kingdom has a 2-child policy now too. I give it another 20 years and USA will be instituting a 1 or 2 child policy too.


.
Don't trust any site which states that women in China were encouraged to have only one child.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2019, 12:18 AM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,352 posts, read 1,968,421 times
Reputation: 15012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
I always thought it was obnoxious, similar to those "BABY ON BOARD!" stickers people put on their back windows. So a 50 year old male accountant is OK with dying in a terrible crash? Or when the news discusses the death toll in natural disasters. "28 people died, including 15 women and children." Like the 13 male victims are just an an afterthought and male deaths don't matter. (I'm a woman BTW).
For the record; 11 kids & never once used one of those signs. And I think it’s weird too, in instances of mass casualty. I know as a mom; that I would grieve for a son just as hard as I did for my daughter.

One of the contexts I was thinking of the OP’s query in, was of who a perpetrator might target:

A big strong guy in his 20’s who is contemplating robbing somebody. It does just seem more vile if he were to knock an elderly woman down & steal her purse, rather than to mug the other big strong guy in his 20’s who is walking through a parking lot.

Or any time a venue is picked for violence; precisely because it will yield victims who are women & children. It is an accusation lobbed at US & European troops regarding raids on Native Americans, there were accusations of the same during Vietnam. It’s ... a thing. Propaganda might strengthen it but it didn’t start it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2019, 01:01 AM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,352 posts, read 1,968,421 times
Reputation: 15012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
That's absolutely NOT the reason why China changed to a 2-child policy. That stuff about gender imbalance and Chinese men not finding mates was just a spiteful nonsense rumour that got started in USA around 2005 and then it spread via internet. Here are the real reasons why China changed to a 2-child policy so that SOME families (not all) are now allowed or are subsidized for two children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy

BTW, the United Kingdom has a 2-child policy now too. I give it another 20 years and USA will be instituting a 1 or 2 child policy too.
I don’t know... The Chinese make up the largest nationality group seeking asylum in the US. Specifically due to reproductive persecution. And there have been some pretty credible human rights advocates who are predicting that China may become the top world consumer of human trafficking, due to sex selection.

France, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Turkey & many more ... have all incentivized larger families with everything from extended paid maternity leaves to gold coins & even free fertility treatments.

The US? Ha; right. We are infamous for being the only country to drop billions of dollars in USAID for population control in other countries, without ever having come up with a formal policy ourselves.

The UK’s policy is not in regards to fertility rates; it’s budget cuts for subsides. Sort of like what could happen to social security here; as the worker-to-beneficiary ratio continues to drop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2019, 01:26 AM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,352 posts, read 1,968,421 times
Reputation: 15012
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
The concept originates in the mathematics of biology: one male can initiate the pregnancies of many women contemporaneously, but one woman can only carry one pregnancy at a time...ie- a clan could perpetuate itself nicely with one male and many females, but a clan with one female and many males would be doomed to extinction.
It does no good to impregnate 10 females if you don’t have the resources to protect & provide for the 10 kids and their mothers. “Baby Daddies” do not make a society stronger; unless you consider single moms raising children in poverty to be empowering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
Couldn't we also break this down further into pre-menopausal and post-menopausal women? Pre-menopausal women would hold the biological value while post-menopausal women would have no biological value. Now if the OP's hypothetical 123 million women to die were all elderly women wouldn't that help tremendously with the anticipated social security, pension and healthcare imbalances on the economic front?
De-valuing post-menopausal women would be a serious mistake: The Grandmother Hypothesis. We are the only primate & one of only two mammals whose females live long after reproductive capabilities have ceased. It’s evolutionary. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...others/264039/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2019, 01:46 AM
 
1,641 posts, read 814,025 times
Reputation: 2204
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunterseat View Post
I believe women are a liability on the battlefield because of the instinct our guys have to be protectors.
And I don't think men in general are able to see women blown up on the battlefield without adding a whole new level of psychological trauma for them.
Boys love their moms!
A distraction guys don't need in combat.
I have yet to meet any guy who was a 'protector.' When I was in public school I was harassed and randomly beaten by males on a frequent basis. Some were adults and some weren't yet. Nothing was ever done about it. I have never once been protected by a man. I've never been protected by anyone.

Men in the military also rape the women. So, I don't think the guys are that much of a protector. No protective instincts involved in raping, maiming, and killing women or even standing by while a woman is harmed.

So, I don't see where male soldiers seeing a woman soldier killed would be any more traumatic than seeing another male soldier killed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2019, 06:33 AM
 
12,483 posts, read 9,485,390 times
Reputation: 9021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newne View Post
For all of human history we have had a "we must always defend and protect the women!" attitude and philosophy.. Which makes sense as they have been the ones ton give life, but clearly things are far different today, with over 7 billion humans we most certainly aren't close to going extinct. According to Matthew White’s estimate on the page Worldwide Statistics of Casualties, Massacres, Disasters and Atrocities., a total of about 123 million men died in all wars of the 20th Century. Hypothetically speaking, say the exact same number of women just dropped dead tomorrow as all the number of men who have died in war in the 20th century, while obviously it would be extremely sad and tragic. do you think 123 million women instantly dropping dead would be as inherently worse than the same number of men instantly dropping dead?
When you put it that way, many people won't admit their biases. Framing makes a lot of difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framin...ct_(psychology)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2019, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Elysium
6,049 posts, read 3,285,279 times
Reputation: 4160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
A woman might be limited to having one pregnancy episode a year, there is such a thing as carrying 2 or more kids during that episode. Let's not forget there is also adoption and foster children.
Adopt from who? The woman and children who a neighboring tribe did not protect thus putting that neighboring tribe in danger of extinction.

The code did not come from protecting the species as much as protecting a family/tribal unit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2019, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Ohio
4,437 posts, read 1,600,516 times
Reputation: 3534
Quote:
Originally Posted by veuvegirl View Post
Women and children first had nothing to do with valuing women’s life more. It had to do with women viewed as weaker and unable to defend themselves.
Possibly. While it is reasonable to argue that adult men and women are equally disposable in a war, it is possible that a woman could be pregnant or breast-feeding an infant, in which case TWO persons are at risk. In these situations it is hard to argue that a woman (and the family) isn't more vulnerable. Probably the source for the thinking of "women and children first".

While this may have been valid during frontier days it's not as relevant for modern warfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2019, 01:41 PM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,352 posts, read 1,968,421 times
Reputation: 15012
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave View Post
Possibly. While it is reasonable to argue that adult men and women are equally disposable in a war, it is possible that a woman could be pregnant or breast-feeding an infant, in which case TWO persons are at risk. In these situations it is hard to argue that a woman (and the family) isn't more vulnerable. Probably the source for the thinking of "women and children first".

While this may have been valid during frontier days it's not as relevant for modern warfare.
I think that’s easier for Americans in 2019 to say than it is for people living in areas experiencing violent civil unrest or targeted by terrorist attacks. In fact; attacks on women & children are actually defining as terrorist activity, in many parts of the world.
“Equally disposable” will be a very hard sell. Try using “women & children killed” as a keyword search on Google, right now.

With the exception of one random result for the woman driver/ schoolbus incident, I am seeing:
1. Air strikes in Yemen 08/2018
2. Cameroon army incident 07/2018
3. Cameroon
4. Afghanistan air raid by the US 11/2018
5. Colorado domestic violence, Chris Watts case 08/2018
6. Syria attack, oddly from 2012
7. Debating Cameroon
8. Las Vegas domestic violence/ murder-suicide 09/2018

Mostly very newsworthy & recent incidents. Swap “killed” for “attacked” & see that “Equally disposable” will dilute everything from school violence to the current controversial border operations to international accusations of war crimes & human rights violations. Seems like a steep price to pay in exchange for desperately clinging to the false construct that: “Men & Women are not different. We are Equal!” That’s really where any opposition to the Drill comes from, isn’t it?

Even if the relative comfort & safety of our day-to-day lives may afford us the leisure time to play with gender-roles-as-a-novelty-toy: Is this idea valid enough to rewrite history?

No more self-flagellating for the Battle of Wounded Knee; equally disposable means they win/you lose/too bad. Sand Creek becomes a non-issue. Basically any historical event carrying the label of “Massacre” or “Genocide” would need to be re-evaluated for reframing using equality as priority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2019, 01:54 PM
Status: "inpatiently waiting for Spring." (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: The Ozone Layer, apparently...
1,735 posts, read 567,047 times
Reputation: 3389
The Titanic was full of people. The wealthy were allowed access to the few lifeboats first - the women and children of the wealthy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top