The Berean
Well-known member
Couldn't the reason be that that more men play chess at the highest levels is because the depth of chess talent among men is far deeper than women? :idunno: It kind of like the chicken or the egg question.
Marines lied: women in combat
- Thread starter Jabin
- Start date
Couldn't the reason be that that more men play chess at the highest levels is because the depth of chess talent among men is far deeper than women? :idunno: It kind of like the chicken or the egg question.
Yes, men dominate chess, because "women can't play" and so they don't play. (There are some good female chess players, but exceptions don't disprove the rule.)
"Although the performance of the 100 best German male chess players is better than that of the 100 best German women, we show that 96 per cent of the observed difference would be expected given the much greater number of men who play chess." Your link is stupid, the kind of stupidity that can only be explained by political correctness.
First, your link doesn't address the highly relevant issue of why more women don't play chess in the first place, "Our study does not deal directly with the reasons why there are so few women in competitive chess." Second, your link wrongly assumes that chess players are randomly selected from the whole population. If men and women have equal chess potential, and given that chess players are self-selected especially by aptitude, then women should be over-represented in the top 100 vs. their participation rate. Yet, they're not even equally represent. The male talent would be more diluted.
And, if it's not too much, try to remember that chess isn't the issue here. I only offered chess as one of many examples. Women spend as many hours playing video games as men do, but professional video game players are nearly all males - just as another example. Feel free to offer a counter example or an explanation other than the on I've given (whining that the participation rate is lower both begs the question and doesn't stand scrutiny).
Women lack both the physical strength and the mechanical reasoning skills that combat requires. Not to mention that they have a very high rate of getting knocked up when they're called upon for combat.
gcthomas
New member
You dismiss the assumptions of the researchers because you have already assumed the truth of your proposition, that women don't play chess because they can't. That presupposes that they tried out the game enough to realise their abilities limited their future in the game. Far more likely is that most women are just not interested in the single mindedness necessary to advance.
And you accuse me off begging the question?
You also seem to be assuming that all women confirm to your stereotype, even though women applying to the marines cannot be considered typical by the sheer act of applying.
I have seen plenty of women with a better grasp of reason than you and with far less arrogant self assured bigotry. Many would make a better and more rational soldier than you. And I have served with some of them.
And you accuse me off begging the question?
You also seem to be assuming that all women confirm to your stereotype, even though women applying to the marines cannot be considered typical by the sheer act of applying.
I have seen plenty of women with a better grasp of reason than you and with far less arrogant self assured bigotry. Many would make a better and more rational soldier than you. And I have served with some of them.
gcthomas
New member
It could be, Berean. But if you assume equality in ability and only a difference in interest levels affecting participation, then you would expect to see the disparity that exists at the highest level. Significantly Differing ability levels added to the reduced participation would produce rankings different to what is seen.
Heck, I remember back in the 80's seeing news stories about how women don't have to do the real kinds of pushups and stuff that men do. This is not news to me. This is old stuff.
BUT the 3 pull-up bit, that IS news to me. Score another lose thanks to feminists.
zoo22
Well-known member
But Jabin's already shown that he's a pretentious know-it-all putz with little understanding of the things he condescends about, and has demonstrated how he thinks like a monkey. So there's that to take into account. His putzness.
What would Liberals believe if they didn't have labels and ad hominem?
They'd still have Karl Marx.
By a single woman in the same scenario? Let's see it.
Sending women to do a man's job is dumb. That isn't to say sending a man to do a woman's job isn't equally dumb. And if you wanted to make an example of the failure of a woman's physical ability in combat, I would not have used grenades, but something more like 155 shells. Or even just a 105.
gcthomas
New member
M4 rifles are the sort of thing being bought by NRA gun nuts for 'personal protection'.
The women soldiers have a rifle perhaps, but no grenades, grenade launchers, section machine guns, smoke or incendiaries. So the M4 is for defensive, self protection work and not for infantry assaults.
As I said.
Neither does anybody that is not on a dismounted patrol. You know not of what you speak.
gcthomas
New member
These are standard equipment for a British infantry section. Do yours go out without offensive weapons then?
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
gcthomas
New member
Yes I have.
When you served, did the logistics people (such units as the marine women will serve in) get issued grenades to throw, or did they just get a rifle? Were they routinely ordered to take part in assaults, or did their rare fighting revolve around self protection?
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
Sometimes, Nick, it is better to keep quiet and have people think you are stupid, than to make silly posts and prove it.
Do you have nothing constructive to offer either?
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
:thumb:
GC answered my question and didn't even know it...we were talking about light infantry combat units but he decided to switch over to logistical support personnel in order to reply?
GCT said:
:rotfl:
GC, each of the above weapons you have listed are carried by Infantry units in the field and are considered primary weapons to close with and destroy the enemy.
:rotfl: The women soldiers have a rifle perhaps :rotfl:
GC, you Britt's are funny.
Oh, what was your specialty again, Offense or defense? :chuckle:
The Berean
Well-known member
I guess the question is whether men and women are equally gifted in every endeavor? I tend to think that is not true. Another aspect is social pressures that can hinder women from entering certain endeavors.
I'm a mechanical engineer and I have interacted with men and women in engineering and manufacturing environments. I rarely if ever see women work as machinists. Is this because women can't be as good machinists as men, or because women are not encouraged to pursue a career in machining, or a combination of both? Ten years ago I worked as a contractor for a small aerospace company. Right after I was hired a lady was hired as a manufacturing engineer. This lady began her career as a machinist in the late 1970's and spent many years working as machinist. She eventually started and ran a rapid prototyping company for about six years. She was awarded several patents for rapid prototyping technology. This lady was brilliant. If I ever had an engineering or manufacturing question she was one the first people I would ask. But many of the male engineers didn't like her. They thought she was pushy and had a know-it-all attitude. I remember after my manager interviewed her he talked about her in a staff meeting. Her technical knowledge and her engineering/manufacturing engineering experience was top notch. But he was concerned about her personality. The secretary for our group was in that staff meeting and even she was concerned that her personality wouldn't fit in.
Last edited:
I used chess and professional video gaming in previous examples for several reasons. Kids get started here before social pressure really matters. As for social pressure, the media has painted a false picture for a couple of generations that women do well in male-dominated fields. In school texts, it's usually females used in math/science questions. A kid could get the idea that nearly every engineer is a woman.
90% of women in management are there because of quotas, not qualifications. There are no quotas in chess, video games, and machining. No DOTA video game league, pulling in hundreds of thousands of dollars, has to worry about the feds suing them for lack of female participation.
The vast majority women in the Marines are there because of quotas, not qualifications. It's about Social Engineering, not Combat.
Maybe she was pushy and otherwise not pleasant? Are you suggesting that men took an attitude because she's female? I generally find men to be very welcoming of females in male-dominated fields.