I was specifically talking about flying a plane into the Pentagon, but the U.S. military routinely strikes "military and economic targets" when we're bombing other countries. See: Iraq, Kosovo, and Iraq again. Guess what the Pentagon and the World Trade Center qualify as then?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Which is why we should never have engaged in torture and indefinite imprisonment without trial.
Or is there some further factor that people consider - that WWII was a "real war", but the violence with Osama was somewhat "less" of a war, and therefore targeting civilians was not justified?
There sure is a factor: American hypocrisy. It's why we have no qualms about bombing "military and economic targets", collateral damage, torture and indefinite imprisonment when we're doing it to others, but scream bloody murder when it's done to us. Look at what the U.S. has done based on the fear and rage of ONE day NINE years ago. Then remember that we've given Iraq and Afghanistan the population equivalent of a 911 every few weeks, or less. Meanwhile we give ourselves backslapping platitudes that sound just like the Soviets that invaded Afghanistan in the 80's.
And to all you wingnuts with mod points, show me where I'm factually wrong on anything I've said.
What about civilian personnel who make up a large component of the Pentagon staff?
What about them? They're doing military work in the central military command building. Call them servicemen, call them civilians, call them tofu - they are still a willing part of the military in the central command building for the military.
The Pentagon's not much of a military target, despite being filled with military folk.
You can't get more "military" than the central command building for said military.
Also, those hijackers were working in tandem with a plan to kill thousands of civilians, so it's rather disingenuous to list only the Pentagon as a target in that particular example.
Which is why I was specifically talking about the act of flying a plan into a building, as opposed to Al Queda's overall actions or plan, so you are a rather obtuse individual.
Actually, in that case they guy had his say when he unzipped his pants and didn't wrap. Unless the woman was poking pinholes in the condoms etc then the consequences are not unforseeable.
Which would be all fine and dandy, if women were subjected the same "you made a choice to have sex, now deal with the consequences" policy. But of course that's not the case. Or if women didn't primary custody in 80% of disputed cases. Or if women had to get the fathers permission before placing a child up for adoption.
When it comes to children, women have choices, and men have responsibilities.
For guys the consequences of such are no worse than a woman who ends up with a father-of-the-child who turns out to be a complete dickhead.
Hardly. A woman is legally free to:
Abort the the fetus without the father's knowledge or permission
Give birth and place the baby up for adoption without the father's knowledge or permission
Raise the child in secret
Raise the child in secret for years, and then hit the father up for child support payments when he has no chance of gaining custody
The one and only "right" a father has is to sue for custody if none of the above happen.
The parent poster also claims that police rarely enforce the law when women are doing the beating -- where are the stats for that?
I'm not going to dig up a qualitative link, but here's a quantitative question: why wouldn't that be the case? No doubt you've heard many an instance where an abused women sought help from the state, only to have her ex severely injure/kill her anyway. The reverse is not the case - when have you ever heard any hand wringing over a man that was injured/killed by his wife about how "this could have been prevented."
Then there's the fact that female life is more valued than male life. That's why the press spent months obsessing over no-names Laci Peterson and Natalee Holloway, yet Phil Hartman being murdered by his wife was a 2 day story.
But don't try and tell me that the genders have equality
Indeed. Women have had the right to vote for nearly 100 years, yet are still exempt from the draft.
when I'm treated like an idiot constantly, despite being a brilliant and accomplished programmer.
Better to be assumed an idiot than a pedophile like a male pediatric nurse, a male kindergarten teacher or a male day care provider.
God sir, I do hope that one day, you are confronted with a large and unwieldy item that should be inserted forcibly into your rectum... and at such time, I will gain a small mote of happiness in continuing existence.
It also relies on her battling her way through a very hostile-to-women political culture to get into a position to be voted for
Um, what? When female politicians are attacked, they raise the "woman shield" and claim it's sexism. See: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin. I'm sure Al Gore is still crying them a river for the unfair treatment they received from the media.
I think that was part of the OP's point, and one that neatly explains why the 'women's movement' is generally marginalized and considered rather silly (by a huge majority of the women I know): feminists seem to exclusively demand equality ACCORDING TO MALE MEASUREMENTS.
Hardly, otherwise feminists would be fighting for women to be subject to the draft, work the same number of 60+ hour work weeks (more than 3x as many men than women work that much), advocate choice for men (terminating parental responsibility for a fetus) and of course arguing for a presumption of equal child custody in the event of a divorce.
But of course none of that is the case. Feminists aren't using "male measurements", they're demanding "equal rights" while conveniently not demanding "equal responsibility".
As a female coworker once commented (best I can remember) when we heard on the radio about women not making as much as men or getting as many work hours per week, "Yeah," she said, holding up a short pencil, "I'd have to be nuts to want to measure the world by male standards. To every one of them this is 12" long, I'm guessing their yardstick of happiness wouldn't really measure up, either?"
Then I hope you reported her to HR for her crass sexism. Women get paid less than men because they work less than men - the "76 cents on the dollar" canard is made by ignoring overtime - see above on who works more 60+ hour work weeks. If women were really paid less than men for doing the same work, then Wal-Mart would have fired all their male employees decades ago and would have an all-female work force.
What irrelevance. The parent poster was specifically talking about the time after 1920, when women have had the right to vote. Which was almost 100 years ago, yet women are still exempt from the draft.
I have to ask you, from radio to tv, to space shuttles, to computers, to encryption, to electricity, to the theory of relativity even to the wheel or to fire...name me any of the woman directly responsible for any invention that is used by man today that has brought them a better quality of life, or even more so, brought more contribution to working less but getting more.
The windshield wiper was invented by a woman. But that's the only notable invention that I've ever heard of that wasn't invented by a man.
Of course, smooth-talking a bunch of medieval religious fanatics bent on getting their own weapons of mass destruction of hasten the coming of the 12th Imam
As opposed to the other medieval religious fanatics bent on triggering the Rapture, that have spent the last few decades taking over the Air Force, which already has enough weapons of mass destruction to kill every living thing on the planet a few times over?
Part of the problem is that the women's movement has fell victim to the belief that being equal means doing what men do.
It should also be noted that the women's movement has only asked for equal rights, never equal responsibility. Women have had the right to vote in the United States for almost 100 years, yet are still exempt from the draft.
Smart men build weapons. Smart women know not to use them.
Right, which is why a solid majority of female senators voted to invade Iraq, and one of them, Hillary Clinton, talked about "totally obliterating" Iran.
This is wrong. What the article intends to say is that people at the very ends of the bell curve are more likely to be men. People at the top are more likely to be women.
Uh, you just contradicted yourself, as the ends of the "bell curve" are the top and the bottom of the IQ range.
Looking at a historical example, lets take a war. Men will want to know HOW an invasion was performed, what sort of strategy was used, the units involved and the outcomes. Women would be much more interested in what drove the country to invade, how it impacted the country being invaded.
Except, of course, that the WHY is part and parcel of the HOW in most cases. Unless you can name some prominent books on the Civil War or WWII that only discuss troop movements while never discussing the political and social events that led to and formed those wars.
While men at large would default to settle disputes through violent means, women would do it peacefully by default.
Sure, sure. Just look at female leaders throughout history:
Catherine the Great - waged expansionary wars on the Turks
Bloody Mary - had the blood of a lot of Protestants on her hands
Queen Elizabeth I - gave official blessing to pirates who attacked the ships from England's rivals
Isabella of Spain - that whole business with torturing Jews and other heretics
Margret Thatcher - Falkland Islands
Hillary Clinton - voted for the Iraq War and talked about "totally obliterating" Iran
Speaking of the Iraq War, if you went back and time and removed every man from Congress, the AUMF would have sailed through the Senate, and lost by a two vote margin in the House. But if one of the non-votes had voted for the invasion and just on of the "noes" had switched to yes, it would have passed the House as well.
So then you might argue that these female leaders were only warlike because they had to act tough to stay in power (an excuse that never applies to men). But you had civilian women handing out white feathers to men at home in the British Empire, to mark them as cowards for not serving in war. The movement was so "successful" that the British government started handing out "King and Country" badges to civil servants in WWI so they could do their jobs without being humiliated.
And finally, another nice quote on the subject from Madeline Albright:
"Anybody who thinks the world would be a better place if run by women doesn't remember high school."
Expect to be "underpaid" as an intern because most of your compensation isn't in money, it's in invaluable experience. You will learn more in a month on a real job than you will in years in a classroom.
And the company gets a ton of nearly free labor in the process.
Even though I don't agree with the stupid security "measurements" taken, this is just absurd and not particularly well thought through.
You shouldn't throw stones....
It takes a very, very small bomb to kill the same amount of people once they are on the plane.
Hardly. Planes are designed to withstand heavy weather and have redundant systems. Carrying a large bomb into a long security line is trivial. Carrying a bomb onto a plane large enough to hit the fuel tanks, the cockpit or severely damage one of the wings is NOT trivial.
I'd like to point out that a Terrorist (in general) deliberately targets civilians.
If they aren't targeting civilians, they aren't terrorists. Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon? Not terrorism. Flying a plane into the Pentagon? Not terrorism (though it was for the folks on the plane). Bombing the U.S.S. Cole? Not terrorism. Attacks on military installations and personnel is not terrorism, it's an attack on the military.
And what percentage of gun owners in the U.S. go on shooting sprees at work? If someone whips out what sure looks like a gun (from a distance), are you going to GTFO or blow it off because "only".003% (or whatever) gun owners go postal?
Your question seems to be quite silly. Just ask the survivors of the terrorist attacks from Mumbai last year.
Slashdot Mirror
And flying a plane into the WTC?
I was specifically talking about flying a plane into the Pentagon, but the U.S. military routinely strikes "military and economic targets" when we're bombing other countries. See: Iraq, Kosovo, and Iraq again. Guess what the Pentagon and the World Trade Center qualify as then?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Which is why we should never have engaged in torture and indefinite imprisonment without trial.
Or is there some further factor that people consider - that WWII was a "real war", but the violence with Osama was somewhat "less" of a war, and therefore targeting civilians was not justified?
There sure is a factor: American hypocrisy. It's why we have no qualms about bombing "military and economic targets", collateral damage, torture and indefinite imprisonment when we're doing it to others, but scream bloody murder when it's done to us. Look at what the U.S. has done based on the fear and rage of ONE day NINE years ago. Then remember that we've given Iraq and Afghanistan the population equivalent of a 911 every few weeks, or less. Meanwhile we give ourselves backslapping platitudes that sound just like the Soviets that invaded Afghanistan in the 80's.
And to all you wingnuts with mod points, show me where I'm factually wrong on anything I've said.
What about civilian personnel who make up a large component of the Pentagon staff?
What about them? They're doing military work in the central military command building. Call them servicemen, call them civilians, call them tofu - they are still a willing part of the military in the central command building for the military.
The Pentagon's not much of a military target, despite being filled with military folk.
You can't get more "military" than the central command building for said military.
Also, those hijackers were working in tandem with a plan to kill thousands of civilians, so it's rather disingenuous to list only the Pentagon as a target in that particular example.
Which is why I was specifically talking about the act of flying a plan into a building, as opposed to Al Queda's overall actions or plan, so you are a rather obtuse individual.
+5 Insightful
I suppose you could see it that way, if you were a moron. It's +5 Projection.
Actually, in that case they guy had his say when he unzipped his pants and didn't wrap. Unless the woman was poking pinholes in the condoms etc then the consequences are not unforseeable.
Which would be all fine and dandy, if women were subjected the same "you made a choice to have sex, now deal with the consequences" policy. But of course that's not the case. Or if women didn't primary custody in 80% of disputed cases. Or if women had to get the fathers permission before placing a child up for adoption.
When it comes to children, women have choices, and men have responsibilities.
For guys the consequences of such are no worse than a woman who ends up with a father-of-the-child who turns out to be a complete dickhead.
Hardly. A woman is legally free to:
The one and only "right" a father has is to sue for custody if none of the above happen.
The parent poster also claims that police rarely enforce the law when women are doing the beating -- where are the stats for that?
I'm not going to dig up a qualitative link, but here's a quantitative question: why wouldn't that be the case? No doubt you've heard many an instance where an abused women sought help from the state, only to have her ex severely injure/kill her anyway. The reverse is not the case - when have you ever heard any hand wringing over a man that was injured/killed by his wife about how "this could have been prevented."
Then there's the fact that female life is more valued than male life. That's why the press spent months obsessing over no-names Laci Peterson and Natalee Holloway, yet Phil Hartman being murdered by his wife was a 2 day story.
But don't try and tell me that the genders have equality
Indeed. Women have had the right to vote for nearly 100 years, yet are still exempt from the draft.
when I'm treated like an idiot constantly, despite being a brilliant and accomplished programmer.
Better to be assumed an idiot than a pedophile like a male pediatric nurse, a male kindergarten teacher or a male day care provider.
God sir, I do hope that one day, you are confronted with a large and unwieldy item that should be inserted forcibly into your rectum... and at such time, I will gain a small mote of happiness in continuing existence.
Stay Classy, snowgirl.
It also relies on her battling her way through a very hostile-to-women political culture to get into a position to be voted for
Um, what? When female politicians are attacked, they raise the "woman shield" and claim it's sexism. See: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin. I'm sure Al Gore is still crying them a river for the unfair treatment they received from the media.
I think that was part of the OP's point, and one that neatly explains why the 'women's movement' is generally marginalized and considered rather silly (by a huge majority of the women I know): feminists seem to exclusively demand equality ACCORDING TO MALE MEASUREMENTS.
Hardly, otherwise feminists would be fighting for women to be subject to the draft, work the same number of 60+ hour work weeks (more than 3x as many men than women work that much), advocate choice for men (terminating parental responsibility for a fetus) and of course arguing for a presumption of equal child custody in the event of a divorce.
But of course none of that is the case. Feminists aren't using "male measurements", they're demanding "equal rights" while conveniently not demanding "equal responsibility".
As a female coworker once commented (best I can remember) when we heard on the radio about women not making as much as men or getting as many work hours per week, "Yeah," she said, holding up a short pencil, "I'd have to be nuts to want to measure the world by male standards. To every one of them this is 12" long, I'm guessing their yardstick of happiness wouldn't really measure up, either?"
Then I hope you reported her to HR for her crass sexism. Women get paid less than men because they work less than men - the "76 cents on the dollar" canard is made by ignoring overtime - see above on who works more 60+ hour work weeks. If women were really paid less than men for doing the same work, then Wal-Mart would have fired all their male employees decades ago and would have an all-female work force.
What ignorance.
What irrelevance. The parent poster was specifically talking about the time after 1920, when women have had the right to vote. Which was almost 100 years ago, yet women are still exempt from the draft.
I have to ask you, from radio to tv, to space shuttles, to computers, to encryption, to electricity, to the theory of relativity even to the wheel or to fire...name me any of the woman directly responsible for any invention that is used by man today that has brought them a better quality of life, or even more so, brought more contribution to working less but getting more.
The windshield wiper was invented by a woman. But that's the only notable invention that I've ever heard of that wasn't invented by a man.
Of course, smooth-talking a bunch of medieval religious fanatics bent on getting their own weapons of mass destruction of hasten the coming of the 12th Imam
As opposed to the other medieval religious fanatics bent on triggering the Rapture, that have spent the last few decades taking over the Air Force, which already has enough weapons of mass destruction to kill every living thing on the planet a few times over?
Smart men build weapons.
Smart women know not to use them.
Right, which is why a solid majority of female senators voted to invade Iraq, and one of them, Hillary Clinton, talked about "totally obliterating" Iran.
I'm a guy in a family of ferociously smart women (we won't discuss my sister, though).
That's convenient for the storyline.
This is wrong. What the article intends to say is that people at the very ends of the bell curve are more likely to be men. People at the top are more likely to be women.
Uh, you just contradicted yourself, as the ends of the "bell curve" are the top and the bottom of the IQ range.
Looking at a historical example, lets take a war. Men will want to know HOW an invasion was performed, what sort of strategy was used, the units involved and the outcomes. Women would be much more interested in what drove the country to invade, how it impacted the country being invaded.
Except, of course, that the WHY is part and parcel of the HOW in most cases. Unless you can name some prominent books on the Civil War or WWII that only discuss troop movements while never discussing the political and social events that led to and formed those wars.
While men at large would default to settle disputes through violent means, women would do it peacefully by default.
Sure, sure. Just look at female leaders throughout history:
Speaking of the Iraq War, if you went back and time and removed every man from Congress, the AUMF would have sailed through the Senate, and lost by a two vote margin in the House. But if one of the non-votes had voted for the invasion and just on of the "noes" had switched to yes, it would have passed the House as well.
So then you might argue that these female leaders were only warlike because they had to act tough to stay in power (an excuse that never applies to men). But you had civilian women handing out white feathers to men at home in the British Empire, to mark them as cowards for not serving in war. The movement was so "successful" that the British government started handing out "King and Country" badges to civil servants in WWI so they could do their jobs without being humiliated.
And finally, another nice quote on the subject from Madeline Albright:
Expect to be "underpaid" as an intern because most of your compensation isn't in money, it's in invaluable experience. You will learn more in a month on a real job than you will in years in a classroom.
And the company gets a ton of nearly free labor in the process.
Which is fine...if it's a nonprofit entity. Otherwise it's voluntary slavery.
Even though I don't agree with the stupid security "measurements" taken, this is just absurd and not particularly well thought through.
You shouldn't throw stones....
It takes a very, very small bomb to kill the same amount of people once they are on the plane.
Hardly. Planes are designed to withstand heavy weather and have redundant systems. Carrying a large bomb into a long security line is trivial. Carrying a bomb onto a plane large enough to hit the fuel tanks, the cockpit or severely damage one of the wings is NOT trivial.
I'd like to point out that a Terrorist (in general) deliberately targets civilians.
If they aren't targeting civilians, they aren't terrorists. Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon? Not terrorism. Flying a plane into the Pentagon? Not terrorism (though it was for the folks on the plane). Bombing the U.S.S. Cole? Not terrorism. Attacks on military installations and personnel is not terrorism, it's an attack on the military.
People are stupid, corrupt and incompetent. How is your Enron stock doing these days?
And what percentage of gun owners in the U.S. go on shooting sprees at work? If someone whips out what sure looks like a gun (from a distance), are you going to GTFO or blow it off because "only" .003% (or whatever) gun owners go postal?
Your question seems to be quite silly. Just ask the survivors of the terrorist attacks from Mumbai last year.
5. He doesn't work there any more, dumbass