Too Many White Guys

[ptourkin]

More on Patrick after the PinkBike discussion. I find his analysis compelling. I'm guessing some won't.

http://redkiteprayer.com/2015/05/too-many-white-guys/

[CunegoFan]

It seems the politically correct method to complain about an inappropriate metaphor is to write bigoted articles about white guys.

[guido]

It's not "too many white guys". It's too few riders of other colors and genders...

[earlfoss]

It's trendy now to bash on white guys.

[gdw]

It's probably not PC to point out that the author is a racist.

[rnhood]

I think the writer is just trying to drum up attention. Never heard of the Pinkbike discussion. Glad I missed it.

[CunegoFan]

What needs to happen in this situation is for a Red Kite Prayer writer to quit, storm off in a huff, and write a blog post about how Red Kite Prayer and its readers tolerate bigotry and racism. The post could then be spread all over social media so all right thinking people can pat themselves on the back for finding somethign to be outraged about that day.

[Vientomas]

The photo with the article depicts 4 men and 3 women. Maybe the line should have been: "One extra white guy".

[54ny77]

RKP should petition the NBA to allow Contador to play point guard. The playing field there needs leveling, there are not enough sub 140-lb. Spaniards in the game.

[mg2ride]

Blaming white guys is the easy out. It simple shows that the author is lazy and likely not very bright.

If he really wanted to generate some clicks he should have mentioned the latest episode of Game of Thrones. It is causing an uproar on the internet!

[joosttx]

That post was amazing in the worse kind of way. Dude or Dudette is a junior provactuer.

[gdw]

"Blaming white guys is the easy out. It simple shows that the author is lazy and likely not very bright."

Lighten up a bit. He submitted it to his Freshman English instructor at the University of Phoenix and got a B.

[mg2ride]

A little more perspective regarding the author. If you scroll through the last 200 or so articles he wrote you will find a very, very short one about the woman aka the outspoken cyclist and another article where he says:

"I know you think we’re stupid, but cyclists are, generally speaking, smarter than your average porn star, which, judging from your photos, may or may not include you."

http://redkiteprayer.com/2014/07/an-open-letter-to-laura-weintraub/

Real nice!

[fuzzalow]

Well, the author is consistent, if not particularly original. Taking the dopey, ersatz-moral high ground in pointing out the already obvious flaws in the current milieu. And following that up with the stunning courageousness in proselytizing for more rightness, righteousness and goodness. Same underpinning as his last feeble attempt and being relevant at this topic.

Yes, I am fully cognizant as to the difficulty in creating content, it is not always easy or simple. But as this RKP writer demonstrates all too readily, it is easy to be lame.

[HenryA]

I have a hangnail -- think I'll go get my pajama-boy outfit on and go to bed 'til I feel safe.

What are these special snowflakes thinking when they write this? Hard to find this much whining in a kindergarten class that missed nap time.

[Aaron O]

I can't believe you folks got past the first paragraph.

[FlashUNC]

Between the shameless Specialized shilling and the half-baked think pieces, RKP is a place I've gone far less than I used to for catching up on the latest and greatest.

[azrider]

Garbage

[Dead Man]

I find his analysis compelling. I'm guessing some won't.

Nope.

[unterhausen]

I don't think anything is wrong with the article itself, the title is off-putting

[verticaldoug]

I can see not liking the article. But does that mean you also believe there is not a problem here of some sort?

I believe there is a problem with violence against woman and it often does involve alcohol. The original pinkbike article was a guy's poor attempt at humor, but I doubt his girlfriend thinks it all that amusing. If his girlfriend is my daughter, I think he is having a come to Jesus meeting with me.

[ptourkin]

This is about what I expected on here. I also wonder who read beyond the title and took offense. In the last year, there have been two threads by very accomplished ultra-endurance riders who happened to be women that denigrated into mansplaining and foolishness (and a claim of "misandry.") In one of them, a woman (who has completed 1200k solo ride) asked a simple question about clothing and was immediately asked by representatives of a certain demographic for pictures of her ass...

A later thread asking for discussion about the lack of representation of women on this forum was poo pooed by the same demographic. I know self-examination might be too "PC" but sometimes I think Oprah was right about when these attitudes will change.

[fuzzalow]

I can't believe you folks got past the first paragraph.

HaHa, it's the kind of thing where you get suckered into reading more thinking the author will come around to something better. Then you read to the last paragraph and the whole thing was a low ebb trickle of drooling words. NBD - 90 seconds worth of reading to find out the author is not even worth that amount of time next time.

I can see not liking the article.

I am gonna presume the writer is not an idiot. So that means to me that he willingly compromised himself in writing a short piece that tried to sound positive. But written in a way without endangering his status and stature with the meatheads he panders to as what he views as his readership. What results is the inane fluff in the garbage of his writing, all without substance or credibility.

Made progressively worse because the topic is a serious one that the author tries to assert leadership on but has no clue about other than pining for a nicer world. Which paradoxically has the effect of making light of the topic - something easily fixed if "we try and be better, we can be nicer, yes we can be good-er" or words to that effect. Sheesh what kinda stupid is that?

Yeah, I'm assuming a lot about this RKP author. I don't read him, don't know his work. But I'm willing to assume he faces the same challenge and choices every hack writer faces in trying to walk the fine line between being credible and not upsetting his internet readership (he's not writing for The Economist). Or maybe the author really is a shallow idiot. Dunno. I do know what he wrote and I know it would have been better if he had written nothing at all.

[pbarry]

I can see not liking the article. But does that mean you also believe there is not a problem here of some sort?

I believe there is a problem with violence against woman and it often does involve alcohol. The original pinkbike article was a guy's poor attempt at humor, but I doubt his girlfriend thinks it all that amusing. If his girlfriend is my daughter, I think he is having a come to Jesus meeting with me.

This is about what I expected on here. I also wonder who read beyond the title and took offense. In the last year, there have been two threads by very accomplished ultra-endurance riders who happened to be women that denigrated into mansplaining and foolishness (and a claim of "misandry.") In one of them, a woman (who has completed 1200k solo ride) asked a simple question about clothing and was immediately asked by representatives of a certain demographic for pictures of her ass...

A later thread asking for discussion about the lack of representation of women on this forum was poo pooed by the same demographic. I know self-examination might be too "PC" but sometimes I think Oprah was right about when these attitudes will change.

So more than one here read the whole blog post? I'm on board with the well put comments above. What year is this??

Padraig is not a great writer, and his post goes around the bend, but his point is well made if you make it to the end.

The advertising images he refers to are mostly Euro-centric, but that's where the bike/retail world is--behind the curve..

I did like the Contador in the NBA comment. Thought of Mugssy Bogues and some great moments.

[FlashUNC]

This is about what I expected on here. I also wonder who read beyond the title and took offense. In the last year, there have been two threads by very accomplished ultra-endurance riders who happened to be women that denigrated into mansplaining and foolishness (and a claim of "misandry.") In one of them, a woman (who has completed 1200k solo ride) asked a simple question about clothing and was immediately asked by representatives of a certain demographic for pictures of her ass...

A later thread asking for discussion about the lack of representation of women on this forum was poo pooed by the same demographic. I know self-examination might be too "PC" but sometimes I think Oprah was right about when these attitudes will change.

So more than one here read the whole blog post? I'm on board with the well put comments above. What year is this??

Padraig is not a great writer, and his post goes around the bend, but his point is well made if you make it to the end.

The advertising images he refers to are mostly Euro-centric, but that's where the bike/retail world is--behind the curve..

I did like the Contador in the NBA comment. Thought of Mugssy Bogues and some great moments.

I'm not disagreeing with some of the ideas he mentions, but like a lot of Padraig's stuff, its a half-baked idea that he doesn't bring out fully. His style comes off as patronizing combined with a half-formed thought. Not a good combo. This column reminds me of his nonsensical defense of Levi's Gran Fondo.

I'm fully on-board with the notion that this subculture of ours needs to be more inclusive. There's been enough disparate instances in the last year that show that's the case.

But the old saying...few bad apples spoil the bunch...

[joosttx]

I'm not disagreeing with some of the ideas he mentions, but like a lot of Padraig's stuff, its a half-baked idea that he doesn't bring out fully. His style comes off as patronizing combined with a half-formed thought. Not a good combo. This column reminds me of his nonsensical defense of Levi's Gran Fondo.

I'm fully on-board with the notion that this subculture of ours needs to be more inclusive. There's been enough disparate instances in the last year that show that's the case.

But the old saying...few bad apples spoil the bunch...

I think he/she comes across as an attention-whore that can form more than two sentences coherently. He/she will try anything to get a rise out of someone which is a shame since I sense he/she can write something sensible.

[Dead Man]

"needs to be more inclusive"

Nobody is excluding anyone. Less people with different genitals and skin colors want to ride road bikes... it's just the f'ing way it goes. Just like women breaking into combat MOSs in the military- you can do that, but understand we're not accommodating you. You want in? You come into what we are.

/stupid topic

[velomonkey]

Gawd I miss Belgium Knee Warmers

Haven't been reading Patrick's tripe since the days he claimed that a non-painted SL3 Specialized, of course, rode dramatically different than a painted one.

[FlashUNC]

"needs to be more inclusive"

Nobody is excluding anyone. Less people with different genitals and skin colors want to ride road bikes... it's just the f'ing way it goes. Just like women breaking into combat MOSs in the military- you can do that, but understand we're not accommodating you. You want in? You come into what we are.

/stupid topic

When you're making rape jokes in a bike review, and pretty much black balling someone from a publication for speaking up, I'd say that's pretty exclusionary.

Or when you're throwing beer and stripper cards on elite Euro cross racers at Cross Vegas and then wondering why they get bent out of shape and they say they're never coming back to arguably the highest profile race in the states because cross has turned into an idiot bro fest.

Maybe in that broad examination of why fewer and fewer people want to ride bikes, there should be some discussion that maybe the attitudes of those in the club aren't very hospitable to those trying to join the club. Its not a "too many white guys" problem. Its a "too many people behave terribly and scare away anyone who might otherwise be welcome under the tent" problem.

Recent evidence seems to indicate you're wrong. Plenty of people are trying to exclude others with pretty terrible behavior. It seems a lot of what is going on is exactly what you describe. People peek into this little world that is bikes, see what's going on, and turn right around and leave wanting nothing to do with it.

[firerescuefin]

This is about what I expected on here. I also wonder who read beyond the title and took offense. In the last year, there have been two threads by very accomplished ultra-endurance riders who happened to be women that denigrated into mansplaining and foolishness (and a claim of "misandry.") In one of them, a woman (who has completed 1200k solo ride) asked a simple question about clothing and was immediately asked by representatives of a certain demographic for pictures of her ass...

A later thread asking for discussion about the lack of representation of women on this forum was poo pooed by the same demographic. I know self-examination might be too "PC" but sometimes I think Oprah was right about when these attitudes will change.


What did you find about Padraig's analysis that was "compelling"? I bet most (if not all) of the folks that commented read the article completely. I did, and I found it anything but compelling.

Regarding the culture of this forum. You singled out two threads (please post the links). I would imagine that the post that were inappropriate (if they were) were made by a few folks. This forum has a huge membership. Overall, it is about as friendly/inclusive of a place as you are going to find. We have a small percentage of @ssholes, that may make statements like the ones you mentioned. The mods are fantastic at moderating/righting the ship when they see that happening. So you have an issue with a small percentage of our population....welcome to the Bell Curve.

I find your statement that basically said that the reaction to this article was about what you expected of this forum (placing yourself as the true north of the moral compass, and denigrating those that disagreed with you) offensive and inaccurate. As others stated, the article was opportunistic, lazy, and predictable. My feeling that way doesn't make me a hindrance to underrepresented groups entering the sport, nor does it cause me to condone the abhorrent behavior of individuals. If you truly feel that way about this place, then I wonder why you continue to post here.

[Dead Man]

When you're making rape jokes in a bike review, and pretty much black balling someone from a publication for speaking up, I'd say that's pretty exclusionary.

Or when you're throwing beer and stripper cards on elite Euro cross racers at Cross Vegas and then wondering why they get bent out of shape and they say they're never coming back to arguably the highest profile race in the states because cross has turned into an idiot bro fest.

Joking about how your girlfriend gets loose when she drinks isn't a "rape joke."

I don't know anything about the stripper cards... but it's also irrelevant. Self-indulgent bad behavior from an individual doesn't say a single thing about the culture as a whole. That's extremely short-sighted.

Do the dudes you ride with tell rape jokes or throw stripper cards at anyone?

[oldpotatoe]

"needs to be more inclusive"

Nobody is excluding anyone. Less people with different genitals and skin colors want to ride road bikes... it's just the f'ing way it goes. Just like women breaking into combat MOSs in the military- you can do that, but understand we're not accommodating you. You want in? You come into what we are.

/stupid topic

THREAD DRIFT ALERT...if that were only true. Not at all in the USN. Lots of accomodations for the small, female contingent on deployed USN ships. I've always said, if it doesn't increase your combat readiness...and it costs you more $, don't do it. The military is NOT a slice of society. People that want to learn to kill people and break things, are not the middle of the bell curve. No reason to take care of a small segment of society in the military, "just cuz they want to". I would have loved to stay in the USN and FLY, but it was called 'needs of the Navy"..ignored with Co-Ed USN.

Sorry for the drift.

[zennmotion]

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that brodudes are well represented here, with the requisite few bad apples apologists, the jokes ain't rape culture willful ignorance, the displaced "I'm a victim of bigotry" logic, the leap to old and "lost" battles to women in the military... Jesus... Buncha whiny, myopic, overindulged grumpy white trolls afraid to look in the mirror. The article wasn't brilliantly written, but the main points were valid and whizzed right over your heads while you were busy working out your defensive posturing. You guys just got chicked by Amanda Batty. Dinosaurs in the age of mammals...

[firerescuefin]

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that brodudes are well represented here, with the requisite few bad apples apologists, the jokes ain't rape culture willful ignorance, the displaced "I'm a victim of bigotry" logic, the leap to old and "lost" battles to women in the military... Jesus... Buncha whiny, myopic, overindulged grumpy white trolls afraid to look in the mirror. The article wasn't brilliantly written, but the main points were valid and whizzed right over your heads while you were busy working out your defensive posturing. You guys just got chicked by Amanda Batty. Dinosaurs in the age of mammals...

I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that the too cool for school, super enlightened, makes judgements about people he doesn't know, has no grasp what my world view is, but is happy to make the jump and lump the majority into his conveniently created classes makes a post like the above.

I am part of a group that mentors inner city kids (at risk populations) that want to pursue fire and police professions. I became a part of that, because I thought the affirmative action policies in place weren't giving either profession awesome candidates, while at the same time acknowledging that both professions need to take significant steps to demographically mirror the communities they serve.

I ride with and help lead a bike club that has created and promoted rides for women as well as new riders....many of which have fed into the A/B midweek training rides. Had a woman pull me aside 2 weeks ago (who is attempting to ride with the A group) to tell me that she really appreciated how encouraging I was during a part of the ride when she was about to get dropped.

Lots of folks that have posted in this thread that I am sure do similar or have a similar world view. Sorry that they may be too stuck in the Jurassic Period to buy wholesale into the "Too Many White Guys" racial/gender self loathing paradigm that you'd prefer they'd embrace.

[Fishbike]

On the positive side, there is some exceptional writing in this thread. In a world full of blather, it is a pleasure to read the thoughts of so many who express themselves so well.

[zennmotion]

I could give you a 30 second version of what I do that may be contrary to a stereotype too, but I'm not jumping into a pissing contest- my comment was simply, and wholly, a reflection of what I read, from some who posted in this thread. Full stop. I'm also occasionally guilty of the attitudes that some have expressed here as well, so the self-righteous suit doesn't fit me well. At least I've come as far as recognizing it and stopped feeling defensive about it. The right thing to do is examine it, own it, and commit to calling it out.

[firerescuefin]

The right thing to do is examine it, own it, and commit to calling it out.

To that we can completely agree. Pretty much say this to my 7 year old (and soon to my 4 and 2 year old) on a daily basis.

[Dead Man]

The right thing to do is examine it, own it, and commit to calling it out.

What is "it?"

[fuzzalow]

My goodness me, this has drifted from reaction, response and critique of the RKP drivel to a general thesis on societal mores and progress on attitudes about gender.

As always, it depends on who you ask. Behaviors like inclusiveness or equality are driven by self restraint and the ability to conceptualize a desired end result involving the greater good. This has very little importance and relevance to certain persons in how they view and choose to live in their part of their little world. Bro-love and frat-boy bonding without the homoeroticism. Little man and little men in their little world. Puerile and tribal to my view but no problem it is a free country.

Misogyny is merely a symptom of a much greater ill that besets a broader segment of society. Sexism is the new racism. It is no longer acceptable to channel Ben Chapman during the age of Jackie Robinson but it is perfectly acceptable to channel Kanye West on bitches & bling in the year 2015, oblivious of course to the social commentary subtext in Mr. West's lyrics.

In the modern day, sexism is an attitude. But the true corrosiveness of what underlies and drives it is because it is really a response to being dropped, finally some cycling parlance, in the competitive world.

[josephr]

the fact that this has already drummed up three pages of posts only lends credibility to this douchebag's naïve commentary. Don't give him an audience.

[1centaur]

Just to establish my bona fides, I read the whole article and all the comments below it.

A lazy habit has developed in recent years. People who have a particular viewpoint say that it's time to have "a discussion on" some topic their friends and they all agree on already. First time I heard it was from Bill Clinton saying we have to have a discussion on race. I learned then, and have learned every time since, that the proponents of such discussions have no interest whatsoever in having a discussion that involves changing their own views. They want to lecture, sanctimoniously, to the folks who just don't get it. And thus progress is not made. I'm sure the KKK would like to have that kind of discussion on race too.

So RKP thinks it's time to have a discussion on sexism in cycling culture, manages to throw in rape and alcohol and race into the mix with advertising, pats himself on the back and collects congratulations from people who feel rather than think their ways through life. And thus progress is not made.

People who actually want to make progress should understand that the best way to start a discussion is with an unloaded question. For example, if the goal is to have the roads packed with all types, ask "Why do you think that most serious recreational cyclists in the US and Europe are male, white, and over 30?" I suspect there are lots of answers to that question that do not involve rape, alcohol, race, or being brainwashed or turned off by ads in cycling magazines. Maybe somewhere in the actual discussion, another question could be asked. "Would using women and more people of color in cycling ads make a big difference to composition of the cycling population?" Maybe some advertising people who actually think about the effectiveness of their ads and would like to sell to another 50MM people have thought about that topic. Then, "why do some cycling ads use sexy young white women to sell products to white guys; does that actually work?" And how about, "Have members of mostly white male cycling clubs found that women and people of color feel excluded when they try to join?" "Women cyclists, why do you cycle and your female friends don't?" And so on. There is an interesting discussion to be had. It's a topic worth discussing culturally and for business purposes. As a discussion, RKP's piece was 95% failure. He has commenters with brains - discuss with them and let the piece get copied over here and Velocipede and roadbikereview and see if some progress could be made. Or, throw stones and call it good.

[Dead Man]

But before any of this, there's another really important question: is there a problem? If so; what is it it? If we can figure out that there's a problem, and what it is, then; how can we prove it to everyone else?

Then the rest of this applies.


Just to establish my bona fides, I read the whole article and all the comments below it.

A lazy habit has developed in recent years. People who have a particular viewpoint say that it's time to have "a discussion on" some topic their friends and they all agree on already. First time I heard it was from Bill Clinton saying we have to have a discussion on race. I learned then, and have learned every time since, that the proponents of such discussions have no interest whatsoever in having a discussion that involves changing their own views. They want to lecture, sanctimoniously, to the folks who just don't get it. And thus progress is not made. I'm sure the KKK would like to have that kind of discussion on race too.

So RKP thinks it's time to have a discussion on sexism in cycling culture, manages to throw in rape and alcohol and race into the mix with advertising, pats himself on the back and collects congratulations from people who feel rather than think their ways through life. And thus progress is not made.

People who actually want to make progress should understand that the best way to start a discussion is with an unloaded question. For example, if the goal is to have the roads packed with all types, ask "Why do you think that most serious recreational cyclists in the US and Europe are male, white, and over 30?" I suspect there are lots of answers to that question that do not involve rape, alcohol, race, or being brainwashed or turned off by ads in cycling magazines. Maybe somewhere in the actual discussion, another question could be asked. "Would using women and more people of color in cycling ads make a big difference to composition of the cycling population?" Maybe some advertising people who actually think about the effectiveness of their ads and would like to sell to another 50MM people have thought about that topic. Then, "why do some cycling ads use sexy young white women to sell products to white guys; does that actually work?" And how about, "Have members of mostly white male cycling clubs found that women and people of color feel excluded when they try to join?" "Women cyclists, why do you cycle and your female friends don't?" And so on. There is an interesting discussion to be had. It's a topic worth discussing culturally and for business purposes. As a discussion, RKP's piece was 95% failure. He has commenters with brains - discuss with them and let the piece get copied over here and Velocipede and roadbikereview and see if some progress could be made. Or, throw stones and call it good.

[Dead Man]

I don't see any serious or reasonable arguments calling for "discussions" on the problem of underrepresentation of white guys in the NBA.

Just because people with different genitals or skin colors participate in certain activities less doesn't mean there's a problem that needs fixing.

[bcroslin]

.

[professerr]

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that brodudes are well represented here, with the requisite few bad apples apologists, the jokes ain't rape culture willful ignorance, the displaced "I'm a victim of bigotry" logic, the leap to old and "lost" battles to women in the military... Jesus... Buncha whiny, myopic, overindulged grumpy white trolls afraid to look in the mirror. The article wasn't brilliantly written, but the main points were valid and whizzed right over your heads while you were busy working out your defensive posturing. You guys just got chicked by Amanda Batty. Dinosaurs in the age of mammals...

Thank you for this.

The demographic of the sport and this place rears an ugly side from time to time here in threads like this (the hipster/fixie thread had some choice bits too). It always catches me by surprise -- no one I know says the sorts of things about women that a few of the guys here do. You read enough of their other posts, and it isn’t too hard to imagine what drives their need to post these things. Good on you for calling it out -- silence can sometime be misinterpreted as consent to, or even approval of, appalling behavior.

[Russian bear]

Too many people in this thread fancy themselves the tree, when they are merely a leaf.

[1happygirl]

snip/This forum has a huge membership. Overall, it is about as friendly/inclusive of a place as you are going to find. We have a small percentage of @ssholes, that may make statements like the ones you mentioned. The mods are fantastic at moderating/righting the ship when they see that happening. So you have an issue with a small percentage of our population....welcome to the Bell Curve.

snip.
There are so many people here that are good at expressing themselves I don't want to expose my poor writing abilities and will just express my agreement with the already well put opinions.

"needs to be more inclusive"

Nobody is excluding anyone. Less people with different genitals and skin colors want to ride road bikes... it's just the f'ing way it goes. Just like women breaking into combat MOSs in the military- you can do that, but understand we're not accommodating you. You want in? You come into what we are.
snipped

THREAD DRIFT ALERT...if that were only true. Not at all in the USN. Lots of accomodations for the small, female contingent on deployed USN ships. I've always said, if it doesn't increase your combat readiness...and it costs you more $, don't do it. The military is NOT a slice of society. People that want to learn to kill people and break things, are not the middle of the bell curve. No reason to take care of a small segment of society in the military, "just cuz they want to". I would have loved to stay in the USN and FLY, but it was called 'needs of the Navy"..ignored with Co-Ed USN.

Sorry for the drift.

I agree and I'm so sorry that this happened to you OP and is happening to all the wonderful people that protected me and others and allowed me to have my freedom to sit at a computer and post this.

As a female, I do not blame the other gender for some resentment because of this absurdity.

I do want to say (as the first quote here said) everyone here has been swell and great to me and to others. Awesome place totally.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I didn't get to read the article (scanned it really quickly) and have not been familiar with Padraig and RKP in the past. It appears on quick assessment that the journalism and responses on the Paceline however far exceed those on the article site.

[zennmotion]

But before any of this, there's another really important question: is there a problem? If so; what is it it? If we can figure out that there's a problem, and what it is, then; how can we prove it to everyone else?

Then the rest of this applies.

Every instinct tells me I should just leave this thread to die, except that I ran across this gem written two days before the quote above and it's just too easy not to point it out as a prime example of see, this right here is the problem, and no this does not sound much like the guys I ride with regularly, but it sounds a lot like the idiots on the rides I've learned to avoid. And not that you should care, but this crap doesn't exactly enhance an inclusive environment, what exactly was the point of this quote below?


Do chicks dig fixies? I did not know this. But are we talking about a certain segment of chick..... like perhaps a segment more likely to give you HPV? When I worked in NW Portland, and therefore partied in NW Portland, I got to experience the awesomeness of the NW bar scene and how ultra easy it is for a young, good looking dude to get laid by tat'd out pink-haired chicks... but was also very aware of the fact that these hipster groupies were probably also banging other people on the nights they weren't banging me - and therefore many more times more likely to have critters than the more prude, but substantially cleaner suburban or country girls I was used to.

Food for thought. Don't forget your raincoat.

[mg2ride]

Every instinct tells me I should just leave this thread to die, except that I ran across this gem written two days before the quote above and it's just too easy not to point it out as a prime example of see, this right here is the problem, and no this does not sound much like the guys I ride with regularly, but it sounds a lot like the idiots on the rides I've learned to avoid. And not that you should care, but this crap doesn't exactly enhance an inclusive environment, what exactly was the point of this quote below?


Do chicks dig fixies? I did not know this. But are we talking about a certain segment of chick..... like perhaps a segment more likely to give you HPV? When I worked in NW Portland, and therefore partied in NW Portland, I got to experience the awesomeness of the NW bar scene and how ultra easy it is for a young, good looking dude to get laid by tat'd out pink-haired chicks... but was also very aware of the fact that these hipster groupies were probably also banging other people on the nights they weren't banging me - and therefore many more times more likely to have critters than the more prude, but substantially cleaner suburban or country girls I was used to.

Food for thought. Don't forget your raincoat.

I don't get it. Is there more support of the "rape Culture" buried somewhere in that quote too?

[1centaur]

Your instinct was probably correct.

I think the quote you copied is not particularly germane to the question of whether there is a too many white guys culture in cycling that needs to get squashed. The quote basically says to watch out for skanky fixie groupies. While it reflects an unselfconscious attitude towards sex that is regrettable, its sexism may not even exist if, as I hope is the case, women are just as conscious that some sets of potential male partners are more likely to be skanky than others. If the point is viewed as warning that some people are skanky in a way that can have bad consequences, I see that as an equal opportunity statement, and the author is under no obligation to make the bigger point since he is just thinking about himself at the moment of writing.

[zennmotion]

Or maybe the quote just provides a timely example that illustrates the point of the original article that started the thread, that seemingly many contributors didn't really read. The article posted by the OP was about (I'm paraphrasing) brodude culture and, (paraphrasing again for simplicity) the "it" that Mr. B doesn't seem able to recognize is douchebaggery, an unfortunately ironic term. Perhaps douchebaggery in brodude terms is better understood, as the faux academicky language being used to create a comfortable distance from the problem also seems to miss the point of the OP's article that started the thread. The quote I pulled out of a seemingly unrelated thread is absolutely misogynist (GRE word) douchebaggery (brodude vocab). Misogyny is definitely the basis of rape culture, though like racism, the term rape culture is so emotionally loaded that it sends discussions into comfortable, distanced defensive language using big words (see what I did there?). Maybe douchebaggery works better as a term connecting the dots?

[rugbysecondrow]

I read the original post by Amanda, and I took it as a public airing of a professional disagreement she had, cloaked in a little rape culture to make it inflammatory and acceptable to discuss. On the surface, that doesn't void her opinions, but I give them much less credence.

What I have learned is that what is gender acceptable differs depending on the arena. I can speak to my sports/activities: In Rugby, females and males interact a certain way, the comment about "shots and girlfriends" would have been made by the lady ruggers well before us guys. I can't imagine anything that would have offended a Rugby Chick except for telling her you wouldn't say something because it might offend her. LOL. In Crossfit, ladies have shirts which talk about a "Clean Snatch". Some Co-Ed Crossfit team names -Snatchaholics, Tits and Twigs, Big Butts and Coconuts, Buns and Guns, Camel Toes to Bar".

Now, I think that in both Rugby and CF, there is a mutual respect amongst participants. If you work hard, put your body on the line and kick some ass, regardless of gender, then you are accepted. There is also an experience which is common amongst participants, a shared experience. It is this respect and shared experience which allows people to make jokes and say things, which are accepted as humor and not take things personally. I don't think all sports are like that and cycling might be one of them.

Cycling is difficult because there are sports (MTB, Road, Track, Cross etc), tons of bike related activities, cycling as a mode of transportation, a way to gain fitness for other sports. Way too many people, different perspectives, different purposes and not as much mutual respect.

Is this indicative of a rape culture or a douch-bag-i-ness regarding white guys in cycling? Well, what part of cycling as there are a great many cultures with different local and sport norms blended together into just one forum. Here, for instance, we all ride in different ways, different purposes and in different circles outside of here. How our genders interact with our mates might vary from how other forum members interact with theirs. It doesn't make one wrong, it just makes them different.

I give the Pink Bike guy the benefit of the doubt that he was just joking, and that comment was one he could make with his mates (male and female) with nothing be laughs and a few "hell yeahs"!






https://img0.etsystatic.com/054/1/10308172/il_570xN.687770002_5o1i.jpg

[zennmotion]

OK some interesting points, but here's the glaring difference. The ironic language used by women ruggers, or crossfit athletes is used to co-opt misogynist language, and reducing it's potency to dehumanize and disempower. Women can use that language, and wear that shirt- good on 'em, I like the message. But when I adopt the same posturing and use that kind of language is has a whole different meaning- it's not going to be perceived as ironic and supportive of tough gritty women athletes. Maybe a more obvious an example is who can use the N word, as a white dude can/should I throw it around? Not if I don't want my teeth kicked in, for understandable reasons. The context of who is saying or doing what makes all the difference.

[1centaur]

The quote I pulled out of a seemingly unrelated thread is absolutely misogynist

And therein is the point of contention. The assertion that women can be objects to have sex with so pick your object carefully is only misogynist if men are unique in that cross gender approach, which carries with it an assumption about women that I do not hold. Confounding elements of this label: some men think of men as objects to have sex with, and some men think of some women as objects to have sex with and others in more complete terms, and many men of course do not think of anybody as objects to have sex with.

So when you label that quote as absolutely misogynist, you are making an assumption that may or may not be true (personally, I don't like that level of objectification ever, BTW) while ignoring other factors, and the linkage to cycling is peripheral as the attitude he expresses is heard often in general culture. Tying it back to RKP, the problem (and I think misogyny is a problem and does exist, as does reverse sexism) is not cycling but general culture. The proportion of white guy cyclists is highly tangential to the cultural issues.

BTW, I saw a Sidi ad in a cycling magazine a few days ago that featured a hot babe, and I wish they would not do that because I DO think it perpetuates stereotypes (about Italians as well) and can't sell shoes as effectively as pointing out their features. If Sidi really has lazy sexists creating its ads, as RKP's piece suggested in general, and not marketing experts who get great testing results from babes and not from features, then I would agree it's long past time to get unlazy and sell more shoes in a scientific way.

[fuzzalow]

I disagree with the rationalization that oppressive attitudes are acceptable in the context of shared camaraderie amongst participants of any activity. I was gonna say that I was not being a prude which is usually the tipoff that one is actually being a prude! But really, I'm not.;)

It is easy and asks nothing of anybody to descend to a baser level of crudity, stupidity, coarseness, misogyny, misandry, stereotype or caricature. That is just too easy. I am not a prude in that if somebody participates in that behavior in a team setting I will not condemn or proselytize but neither will I submit to or encourage such behavior. I would find it self demeaning and in conflict with my self respect in rooting around at a level beneath anybody of any standard.

Man, shoot a Go-Pro video of it and don't show anybody, just watch it yourself later on and tell me what you think in the clearness of thought while not being in a locker room which grovels to the mentality of a mob.

That t-shirt pictured is early feminist-provocative, from the early disarming phase of the gender equality wars. It is, I think, meant to defuse the vulgarity of the words in a sports jargon context while "nod nod wink wink" at the sexism of its application and reference to female meat. It's power is in throwing the words back at their perpetrators. But IMO it is still self demeaning, in spite of its intent, because it lends legitimacy to the words simply in their use as juxtaposition with themselves gender-wise.

The mere fact that these above ideas are expressed in paragraphs rather than in grunts and lasciviousness means I'm barking up the wrong tree to make sense to folks that think this is OK. Whaddaya gonna do, can't change the world.

[malcolm]

I read the whole article, didn't particularly move me. I also read the pink bike article and Amanda's response to it. I tend to agree with her the statement was over the top and repugnant. I also think her response was meant to be inflammatory and hey that's part of her job as a writer.

I'll add this. My wife is at the top of her field which is primarily male, so I've seen the struggles and the disparity first hand and trust me it does exist in abundance.
When you are the majority group you can't fathom what it takes for an outsider to break in and it's easy to have the mentality/justification that just the way things naturally divided up. I couldn't imagine being a female cyclist trying to make my way in this sport.

On a positive note I just got back from Yellowstone and saw a half dozen or so fully loaded bikers touring the park and well over half of the solo riders were women. Also saw a family with dad on a loaded tourer pulling a trailer with a kid in it followed by mom also fully loaded with another older kid on a tag-a-long. Now that's awesome.

[zennmotion]

And therein is the point of contention. The assertion that women can be objects to have sex with so pick your object carefully is only misogynist if men are unique in that cross gender approach, which carries with it an assumption about women that I do not hold. Confounding elements of this label: some men think of men as objects to have sex with, and some men think of some women as objects to have sex with and others in more complete terms, and many men of course do not think of anybody as objects to have sex with.

So when you label that quote as absolutely misogynist, you are making an assumption that may or may not be true (personally, I don't like that level of objectification ever, BTW) while ignoring other factors, and the linkage to cycling is peripheral as the attitude he expresses is heard often in general culture. Tying it back to RKP, the problem (and I think misogyny is a problem and does exist, as does reverse sexism) is not cycling but general culture. The proportion of white guy cyclists is highly tangential to the cultural issues.

BTW, I saw a Sidi ad in a cycling magazine a few days ago that featured a hot babe, and I wish they would not do that because I DO think it perpetuates stereotypes (about Italians as well) and can't sell shoes as effectively as pointing out their features. If Sidi really has lazy sexists creating its ads, as RKP's piece suggested in general, and not marketing experts who get great testing results from babes and not from features, then I would agree it's long past time to get unlazy and sell more shoes in a scientific way.

Um, no. I don't know if you're just trolling or if you really feel like all the tortured parsing and analysis is necessary to recognize misogyny- I think you can safely trust your gut on this one- you recognized it yourself

personally, I don't like that level of objectification ever, BTW)

The fact that reverse sexism exists is a defensive smokescreen- sexism is so overwhelmingly disproportionate in one direction that it's trivial, and (sorry) a silly defensive counterargument.

only misogynist if men are unique in that cross gender approach, which carries with it an assumption about women that I do not hold.

I don't know what you mean by a "cross gender approach' (to what?) but again, the power dynamic is so lopsided against women, and you're choosing an academic defense to what might feel really uncomfortable and ignoring your own instincts when processing what you hear.

As for Sidi and the Italians, whattayagonnado? Take a look at Fellini's City of Women if you want to see some real misogyny in film Italian style.

[rugbysecondrow]

OK some interesting points, but here's the glaring difference. The ironic language used by women ruggers, or crossfit athletes is used to co-opt misogynist language, and reducing it's potency to dehumanize and disempower. Women can use that language, and wear that shirt- good on 'em, I like the message. But when I adopt the same posturing and use that kind of language is has a whole different meaning- it's not going to be perceived as ironic and supportive of tough gritty women athletes. Maybe a more obvious an example is who can use the N word, as a white dude can/should I throw it around? Not if I don't want my teeth kicked in, for understandable reasons. The context of who is saying or doing what makes all the difference.

To your point about the N word, I must say that there is a bit of a generational shift. "Nigga" has been popularlized so much in culture that many white kids don't see it as a bad word, or at least something to be bashful of. They didn't grow up in an era where "······" was used as a demeaning term, used to put people down, create classes and subordinate people. I don't know how old you are ( I am 37), I blush and look around when a song plays and it has those words in it, younger folks don't even recognize it. So, I don't think it is a white issue, but it is a generational issue as well. Young folks don't have the same hangups about race we wrestled with.

I disagree with the rationalization that oppressive attitudes are acceptable in the context of shared camaraderie amongst participants of any activity. I was gonna say that I was not being a prude which is usually the tipoff that one is actually being a prude! But really, I'm not.;)

It is easy and asks nothing of anybody to descend to a baser level of crudity, stupidity, coarseness, misogyny, misandry, stereotype or caricature. That is just too easy. I am not a prude in that if somebody participates in that behavior in a team setting I will not condemn or proselytize but neither will I submit to or encourage such behavior. I would find it self demeaning and in conflict with my self respect in rooting around at a level beneath anybody of any standard.

Man, shoot a Go-Pro video of it and don't show anybody, just watch it yourself later on and tell me what you think in the clearness of thought while not being in a locker room which grovels to the mentality of a mob.

That t-shirt pictured is early feminist-provocative, from the early disarming phase of the gender equality wars. It is, I think, meant to defuse the vulgarity of the words in a sports jargon context while "nod nod wink wink" at the sexism of its application and reference to female meat. It's power is in throwing the words back at their perpetrators. But IMO it is still self demeaning, in spite of its intent, because it lends legitimacy to the words simply in their use as juxtaposition with themselves gender-wise.

The mere fact that these above ideas are expressed in paragraphs rather than in grunts and lasciviousness means I'm barking up the wrong tree to make sense to folks that think this is OK. Whaddaya gonna do, can't change the world.


I brought my final point to the top: Humor is the gateway to greater conversation amongst friends.
If you can make a snatch, double boob joke, hairy ass joke then maybe we can also discuss race issues in Baltimore without fear of reprisal and with a respect for the other persons perspective.

I think the world has changed though. People don't have many of the same hangups about race, feminism, language, sexuality etc. Viewing todays culture through the eyes of a 1960's civil rights movement, or a 1970's NOW ad is just not applicable. Many women today don't accept it, they don't expect men too as well, this creates an environment where individuals can be themselves, free from the boundaries of a movement. You can elect to be above the fray, I can wallow in the filth, and we can both be right because it is what is right for us.

I don't carry on with all people the same way. I am in no way in favor of being disrespectful to women, at all, frankly I don't think I should be disrespectful to anybody. I do believe though that women have a right to participate, make jokes on their terms, get it as good as they can give it. In blending the genders through humor, hard work and mutual respect, it seems to break down conversation of greater importance. If you can make a snatch, double boob or hairy ass joke, then maybe we can also discuss race issues in Baltimore without fear of reprisal and with a respect for the other persons perspective.

[1centaur]

Let's simplify. If a man thinks of a woman as a sex object and a woman thinks of a man as a sex object, is either sexist? If a man thinks of a man as a sex object, is that sexist?

If anybody thinks of anybody as a sex object, the problem may be the sex, not the ist.

[rugbysecondrow]

I'll add this. My wife is at the top of her field which is primarily male, so I've seen the struggles and the disparity first hand and trust me it does exist in abundance.


.

My wife is a mechanical engineers, BS and MS, and I have seen this as well. Luckily she hasn't had as many problems as many other women have, but she also doesn't take any ····. She keeps me in line pretty well. I love smart, strong women, I wouldn't have it any other way.

[93legendti]

Too many Canadians in Hockey...

[fuzzalow]

I brought my final point to the top: Humor is the gateway to greater conversation amongst friends.
If you can make a snatch, double boob joke, hairy ass joke then maybe we can also discuss race issues in Baltimore without fear of reprisal and with a respect for the other persons perspective.

OK, I can accept that because it comes with the precursor of your credibility based on how I know you through this forum. But outside of you, I still think that kind of crudity is lousy humor and a cheap substitute for lack of wit. Yes, no need to be elitist but neither should there be a fear and aversion to aspire to intelligence.

As I said, I'm barking up the wrong tree to change anybody but I look at this as interesting conversation with some thoughtful people on this forum.

[zennmotion]

Argh, OK I need to extract from this and get on with my day-

Rugby- yes I'm aware of shift in perception with a generation of white kids who have been exposed to hiphop rappers, I'm old but not that old, and keep them offa my lawn btw... Again I make the same point, the white kids don't get to "decide" if/when the N word is OK. It might go without incident among their immediate peers, but we both know that out of that general context they're in dangerous territory. People hurt by the word get to call it out loudly, even violently, regardless of the "intended" meaning.

And Centaur- really? You simplified, but I no longer see a point. Have I experienced reverse sexism? Probably, but it's telling that I can't remember. Can anybody come up with an experience resulting from reverse sexism that resulted in anything like chronic fear or major loss? Because I think if you ask your wife/gf/mom you might hear a few stories...

[malcolm]

My wife is a mechanical engineers, BS and MS, and I have seen this as well. Luckily she hasn't had as many problems as many other women have, but she also doesn't take any ····. She keeps me in line pretty well. I love smart, strong women, I wouldn't have it any other way.

After 20 years married I too have a deep respect for strong successful women. It's a combination of thick skin, tough as nails, never quit and pick your battles. Same for men but I can say without hesitation much more difficult for women.

[Dead Man]

The quote I pulled out of a seemingly unrelated thread is absolutely misogynist

How?

[mg2ride]

OK some interesting points, but here's the glaring difference. The ironic language used by women ruggers, or crossfit athletes is used to co-opt misogynist language, and reducing it's potency to dehumanize and disempower. Women can use that language, and wear that shirt- good on 'em, I like the message. But when I adopt the same posturing and use that kind of language is has a whole different meaning- it's not going to be perceived as ironic and supportive of tough gritty women athletes. Maybe a more obvious an example is who can use the N word, as a white dude can/should I throw it around? Not if I don't want my teeth kicked in, for understandable reasons. The context of who is saying or doing what makes all the difference.
You are a bigger part of the problem than you think.

You seem to belief that some how us white guys have a greater power with our words. We need to be more careful with what we say than woman or minorities.

While there is little doubt that I’m different, I’m no better (or lesser) than woman or minorities. Therefore, my use of the word “nigg er” or my use of sex related terms should not be perceived any differently than anyone else’s.

If you think “you” need to be held to a higher standard, you are the one looking down on them, not me.

[zennmotion]

You are a bigger part of the problem than you think.

I am certain that you are correct, and the same holds for yourself, you're in a blind spot, dude. This a a large part of the problem that we are both part of, the major difference is that I have some awareness of it

You seem to belief that some how us white guys have a greater power with our words. We need to be more careful with what we say than woman or minorities.

Yes. thats right

While there is little doubt that I’m different, I’m no better (or lesser) than woman or minorities. Therefore, my use of the word “nigg er” or my use of sex related terms should not be perceived any differently than anyone else’s.

In a perfect world without predjudice this would be true. However, go test this in the real world and report back.

Sorry this is ridiculous, again, go out and test this hypothesis, see how it works out for you.

If you think “you” need to be held to a higher standard, you are the one looking down on them, not me.

That's exactly what I'm advocating here, but your second statement is a non-sequitur to the first.

From your statements I'm guessing you haven't thought much about this before, I'm glad to provoke some thought anyway, but this is a logic bomb, so hopefully life will be gentle to you as you figure it out.

[rugbysecondrow]

From your statements I'm guessing you haven't thought much about this before, I'm glad to provoke some thought anyway, but this is a logic bomb, so hopefully life will be gentle to you as you figure it out.

So, here is the big difference, it is not the words that matter, but the relationship and the context within which they are spoken. There is so much I can say to a friend that a stranger on the street might take the wrong way, that litmus test doesn't work.

I actually disagree with the notion that the words of white men should be held to a more responsible level than others. Norms are established by society as a whole, and as language seeps into our culture, words are added and removed from our vocabulary. How we use words are adjusted, and white men respond to this just the same as other people. I also think people of a younger generation are raised with a parity, a sense of equality that older generations cannot understand. Older folks, yes, even us in our 30's, try to overlay our understanding to their world and it doesn't always reconcile. Interracial dating, friendships, gay marriage, women in sports, eduction and employment and much more is viewed very differently amongst younger people. This is not to say there is 100% parity, but that the gap is narrowed. Hell, my kids know no different than a black president...I would never have guessed that a black man would be President of the USA, and certainly not before a woman, but here it happened and we are better as a country for it.

Young black people, asians, whites, indians and more spent the week after the Baltimore riots cleaning up the streets, organizing food banks, doing community service. It was not a white problem, black problem etc, but a Baltimore problem and these folks stepped up. This is our world, and we are better for it. Along with this comes conversation, words, tolerance of humor and language which has also shifted how folks related. Older folks might not get it, but they younger ones do.

[malcolm]

So, here is the big difference, it is not the words that matter, but the relationship and the context within which they are spoken. There is so much I can say to a friend that a stranger on the street might take the wrong way, that litmus test doesn't work.

I actually disagree with the notion that the words of white men should be held to a more responsible level than others. Norms are established by society as a whole, and as language seeps into our culture, words are added and removed from our vocabulary. How we use words are adjusted, and white men respond to this just the same as other people. I also think people of a younger generation are raised with a parity, a sense of equality that older generations cannot understand. Older folks, yes, even us in our 30's, try to overlay our understanding to their world and it doesn't always reconcile. Interracial dating, friendships, gay marriage, women in sports, eduction and employment and much more is viewed very differently amongst younger people. This is not to say there is 100% parity, but that the gap is narrowed. Hell, my kids know no different than a black president...I would never have guessed that a black man would be President of the USA, and certainly not before a woman, but here it happened and we are better as a country for it.

Young black people, asians, whites, indians and more spent the week after the Baltimore riots cleaning up the streets, organizing food banks, doing community service. It was not a white problem, black problem etc, but a Baltimore problem and these folks stepped up. This is our world, and we are better for it. Along with this comes conversation, words, tolerance of humor and language which has also shifted how folks related. Older folks might not get it, but they younger ones do.

How true. I'm 56 and grew up in the southeast. I have a 12 year old and 14 year old. I look at my kids and their friends and think back to when I was a kid and I know things are getting better and will continue to at least in this area.

[mg2ride]

From your statements I'm guessing you haven't thought much about this before, I'm glad to provoke some thought anyway, but this is a logic bomb, so hopefully life will be gentle to you as you figure it out.

From your statements I'm thinking you spend more timing guessing than thinking.

[bcroslin]

From your statements I'm thinking you spend more timing guessing than thinking.

zenmotion's comments have been extremely thoughtful. It's too bad that instead of considering them you dismiss them out of hand.

the patriarchy is real whether you want to believe it or not.

[zennmotion]

OK this has drifted pretty far away now -how did we get to Baltimore riots again? And rational argument just turned to defensive insults. I'm far from claiming I have all this figured out but my points are pretty well grounded in better thinkers than me, which I have bothered to read because I think it's a pretty important issue (misogeny) and since it directly affects some of the professional work I do. I'd be happy to provide a list of peer-reviewed published pieces where I apparently spent more time guessing than thinking, thanks for that insight. Check your grammar btw... (gratuitous swipe- definitely time to exit)

[Dead Man]

How?

The single most important question in this new round of debate remains unanswered.

[Dead Man]

And, uh.... you called me a "brodude" and accused me of "douchebaggery." So I'd say you started off on the wrong foot, to begin with (speaking of insults)

[rugbysecondrow]

OK this has drifted pretty far away now -how did we get to Baltimore riots again? And rational argument just turned to defensive insults. I'm far from claiming I have all this figured out but my points are pretty well grounded in better thinkers than me, which I have bothered to read because I think it's a pretty important issue (misogeny) and since it directly affects some of the professional work I do. I'd be happy to provide a list of peer-reviewed published pieces where I apparently spent more time guessing than thinking, thanks for that insight. Check your grammar btw... (gratuitous swipe- definitely time to exit)

Conversations flow my man, you know that.

Now that you are ready to bow out, do you think I could take you out for a few shots and see what happens?:beer::banana::banana::banana:

[beeatnik]

It's never easy to tell a white dood that he's a white dood.

A few weeks back a pal whose income is 1/4 mil yearly was complaining about being economically disadvantaged because, ya know, you cant get a nice house in LA for under 400 grand.

[rugbysecondrow]

It's never easy to tell a white dood that he's a white dood.

A few weeks back a pal whose income is 1/4 mil yearly was complaining about being economically disadvantaged because, ya know, you cant get a nice house in LA for under 400 grand.

What does being white have to do with your next statement?

It is funny, the white guy bashing, joking etc. I am a white guy, and as Louis CK says, "this ···· is gooood." But, it reminds me of a conversation I had in school with a woman who said, "black people can't be racist against white people because disliking white people is justified." Apparently racism has a few caveats. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkJOcpapKGI

[beeatnik]

What does being white have to do with your next statement?



Nothing just statistics (census data)

[velomonkey]

It is funny, the white guy bashing, joking etc. I am a white guy, and as Louis CK says, "this ···· is gooood." But, it reminds me of a conversation I had in school with a woman who said, "black people can't be racist against white people because disliking white people is justified." Apparently racism has a few caveats. :)]

Lists of people who don't need to be defended

1. White People
2. Car drivers
3. Bankers
4. Politicians

[velomonkey]

Hell, my kids know no different than a black president...I would never have guessed that a black man would be President of the USA


You do know, as a fact, that Obama is as much white as he is black. There is zero room for debate in that statement.

Yet you refer to him as a "black president."

I think my point has been made. If you can't see it, then you will never, ever see it and nothing I or anyone will ever say is going to change your myopic view.

[rugbysecondrow]

Nothing just statistics (census data)

Statistics, census data? About 3% of the population make that much, what does that have to do with being a "white dood"?


You do know, as a fact, that Obama is as much white as he is black. There is zero room for debate in that statement.

Yet you refer to him as a "black president."

I think my point has been made. If you can't see it, then you will never, ever see it and nothing I or anyone will ever say is going to change your myopic view.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VnSTCnnWYnA/VF-Xw7RIPfI/AAAAAAAAPGc/a4M8tHQr_VY/s1600/What%2Byou%2Btalking%2Babout.jpg

[firerescuefin]

You do know, as a fact, that Obama is as much white as he is black. There is zero room for debate in that statement.

Yet you refer to him as a "black president."

I think my point has been made. If you can't see it, then you will never, ever see it and nothing I or anyone will ever say is going to change your myopic view.

What planet are you living on?

I can tell you that African Americans certainly think he is a black president.

Give me your definition of what our first black president should look like to qualify him as black enough.

[chuckroast]

Velomonkey, we are skating on thin ice here but the President self identifies as a black man....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/us/politics/03census.html?_r=0

[velomonkey]

What planet are you living on?

I can tell you that African Americans certainly think he is a black president.

Give me your definition of what our first black president should look like to qualify him as black enough.

He is referred to as black - by most everyone - because in this country if you have any black in you - you are black. That typically means a lot of negative consequences and not a lot of positives.

Obama has as much white in him as he does black, however, he gets none of the advantages of being white.

He gets referred to as black.
He gets all the normal crap 'blacks' get
people starring
people not wanting him to date their white daughter
people securing their valuables
the list goes on.

My point in saying this, and if it's lost on you then you will never see it, is that one can be as much white as they are black - yet they are only treated as if they were all black.

Trust me brother, I got two adopted sisters who are half black an half white - and I saw it first hand. You want to argue otherwise be my guest.

[velomonkey]

Velomonkey, we are skating on thin ice here but the President self identifies as a black man....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/us/politics/03census.html?_r=0

He identifies as a black man because, as per my other post, he knows nothing else since society treated him, since birth, no different than someone who is all African American (even though he was raised by a white mom and white grandparents and is, in fact, half white). So let's tell this like it is - his nature is half white half black - his nurture is all white - yet he identifies as all black. Now, explain to me how that happens?

Here is a test - go find me one half black half white person who identifies as white. Not some hack conservative shucking for votes, just some average Joe that's like "yea, I'm white." Find me one, anywhere.

Aint no thin ice here . . . .

[firerescuefin]

Look man...I'm not looking to throw stones/antagonize, but I'd really like for you to answer my question. What characteristics should our first black President have to meet your definition of black?

If his black constituency consider him black...that's enough for me.

He is referred to as black - by most everyone - because in this country if you have any black in you - you are black. That typically means a lot of negative consequences and not a lot of positives.

Obama has as much white in him as he does black, however, he gets none of the advantages of being white.

He gets referred to as black.
He gets all the normal crap 'blacks' get
people starring
people not wanting him to date their white daughter
people securing their valuables
the list goes on.

My point in saying this, and if it's lost on you then you will never see it, is that one can be as much white as they are black - yet they are only treated as if they were all black.

Trust me brother, I got two adopted sisters who are half black an half white - and I saw it first hand. You want to argue otherwise, while calling the dude black, be my guest.

[velomonkey]

Look man...I'm not looking to throw stones/antagonize, but I'd really like for you to answer my question. What characteristics should our first black President have to meet your definition of black?

If his black constituency consider him black...that's enough for me.

You're asking for something I never said. All I am saying is that if someone is half one color and half white - society seems them as the NON WHITE color - almost as if the goods are contaminated. They can even be raised only by a white family, yet they AREN'T white. FYI - a majority of American's see him as mixed race (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/14/is-barack-obama-black).

If you want to argue that racism is dead cause we have a black president, then that's something else.

[mg2ride]

He identifies as a black man because, as per my other post, he knows nothing else since society treated him, since birth, no different than someone who is all African American (even though he was raised by a white mom and white grandparents and is, in fact, half white). So let's tell this like it is - his nature is half white half black - his nurture is all white - yet he identifies as all black. Now, explain to me how that happens?

Here is a test - go find me one half black half white person who identifies as white. Not some hack conservative shucking for votes, just some average Joe that's like "yea, I'm white." Find me one, anywhere.

Aint no thin ice here . . . .

My son dates a 1\2 black girl that identifies herself as white even though most people assumes she is Latino.

Thankfully it's a different world now then even 20 years ago.

[rugbysecondrow]

My son dates a 1\2 black girl that identifies herself as white even though most people assumes she is Latino.



Thankfully it's a different world now then even 20 years ago.


This was the point, kids will grow up with a black president and not think twice. It will be just as natural as a female lawyer or Dr, or male nurse or stay at home dad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[velomonkey]

This was the point, kids will grow up with a black president and not think twice. It will be just as natural as a female lawyer or Dr, or male nurse or stay at home dad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Distinction, it gets better with each generation. Thankfully. However, at this point - there is still white privilege in a big, big way.

Plenty of young youths upset with how society treats them. Is it getting better? For certain. Is it eradicated? Not even close.

[93legendti]

"needs to be more inclusive"

Nobody is excluding anyone. Less people with different genitals and skin colors want to ride road bikes... it's just the f'ing way it goes. Just like women breaking into combat MOSs in the military- you can do that, but understand we're not accommodating you. You want in? You come into what we are.

/stupid topic

No kidding. Women in the Rangers? Great idea...:rolleyes:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/30/ranger-women/28179303/

[JeffS]

Born, a white male, I began the transition from bigoted and conservative to social liberal in my late teens. For years I had to consciously over-ride my gut reaction to some things. I no longer need to.

That said... nothing makes me grind my teeth more than blanket demonization of the white male.

It's disheartening to spend your entire adult life advocating for equal treatment for all, only to be faced with a litany of white privilege accusations in recent years. I will never be advocated for, I will never be able to "understand" the people I advocate for, and I will always be despised by some for being born to my parents.

This approach by some is counter-productive to the causes, especially those of black americans and 4th wave feminists.

[JAllen]

Man...

This is a "grab a brew, some popcorn, and pull up a chair" kind of thread!

[Black Dog]

No kidding. Women in the Rangers? Great idea...:rolleyes:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/30/ranger-women/28179303/

Well, seems to work in some countries. Canada has women in combat roles, in fact we had a female officer killed in combat in Afghanistan. She was an excellent officer and well respected by her troops. She did not have to become a "man" to earn and receive her position in the forces. How many men, once in, these male dominated jobs that have stringient physical entrance requirements would pass the entrance tests if they had to take them again?

[Black Dog]

Born, a white male, I began the transition from bigoted and conservative to social liberal in my late teens. For years I had to consciously over-ride my gut reaction to some things. I no longer need to.

That said... nothing makes me grind my teeth more than blanket demonization of the white male.

It's disheartening to spend your entire adult life advocating for equal treatment for all, only to be faced with a litany of white privilege accusations in recent years. I will never be advocated for, I will never be able to "understand" the people I advocate for, and I will always be despised by some for being born to my parents.

This approach by some is counter-productive to the causes, especially those of black americans and 4th wave feminists.

I agree that racism and bigotry of any kind is never justified by any group including the minority. However, you here a lot of talk, even here, that uses the "their racists too" argument to dismiss or rationalise systemic discrimination, past and present.

To your point about being white and not taken seriously as an advocate for social justice, just because your white. It is a barrier that history has put up because being white and male, has, and still does, confer a lot of privilege. People will assume that you have not done the heavy lifting involved in building empathy for minorities and women because most white males remain clueless about the reality that these groups face just because they are black or have ovaries. It is not fair, it is discriminatory, and counter productive, but still is a reminder of what these groups face all the time. Humans are an irrational and reactive lot. Being rational and responsive is hard work and a skill that is learned and requires ongoing effort, most humans don't have the will or means to do so. Having a society that does not hold critical thinking in high regard or require it as a skill for survival certianly does not help.

[oldpotatoe]

Well, seems to work in some countries. Canada has women in combat roles, in fact we had a female officer killed in combat in Afghanistan. She was an excellent officer and well respected by her troops. She did not have to become a "man" to earn and receive her position in the forces. How many men, once in, these male dominated jobs that have stringient physical entrance requirements would pass the entrance tests if they had to take them again?

Define 'it works'. Yes, it is possible but it costs in terms of money and also combat effectiveness. Regardless of the CO of an aircraft carrier going on the 1MC and saying, 'don't screw around with each other or else', geee, among late teens and early 20 somethings, hormones raging, it DOES happen..which creates all sorts of problems. My issue isn't women in the USN, my problem is Co-Ed..make 'em all male or all female. I've seen first hand a ranking USN officer, who decides to bonk a female JO, the word gets out and he loses the squadron first, as in he is no longer respected as the senior officer, then officially, he is relieved for cause. My only experience is the USN..females on Sub patrols, on long deployments..it just isn't like 'the last ship' on TV.

[Black Dog]

Define 'it works'. Yes, it is possible but it costs in terms of money and also combat effectiveness. Regardless of the CO of an aircraft carrier going on the 1MC and saying, 'don't screw around with each other or else', geee, among late teens and early 20 somethings, hormones raging, it DOES happen..which creates all sorts of problems. My issue isn't women in the USN, my problem is Co-Ed..make 'em all male or all female. I've seen first hand a ranking USN officer, who decides to bonk a female JO, the word gets out and he loses the squadron first, as in he is no longer respected as the senior officer, then officially, he is relieved for cause. My only experience is the USN..females on Sub patrols, on long deployments..it just isn't like 'the last ship' on TV.

Hey young kids are going to fool around. If they are enlisted and there is no issue around consent etc, then not the end of the world. A commander with a subordinate is a no go regardless of who is male or female. This is not any different that bosses and employees in many a work place.

[oldpotatoe]

Hey young kids are going to fool around. If they are enlisted and there is no issue around consent etc, then not the end of the world. A commander with a subordinate is a no go regardless of who is male or female. This is not any different that bosses and employees in many a work place.

I see you have never been deployed or in the military. Scrumping in the bunk rooms is a HUGE problem on deployed ships. It creates all sorts of issues, not the least of which is jealosy, favoritism, people making wrong decisions, on a WAR SHIP that will cause people to get hurt or killed. There are BIG issues, and it continues today.

Fool around when on the beach, on liberty, but not when at sea..but that's a tough sell, in spite of the consequences..like being fired, discharged, losing all your benefits..maybe even brig time.

[velomonkey]

It's disheartening to spend your entire adult life advocating for equal treatment for all, only to be faced with a litany of white privilege accusations in recent years. I will never be advocated for, I will never be able to "understand" the people I advocate for, and I will always be despised by some for being born to my parents.

Total Hannity talking point. Just because one acknowledges that because of skin color you are given advantages or disadvantages it in NO way means the advantaged is despised and vilified. At all.

Also, the mere fact that you do work for justice means you empathize with the plight others face, just because you can't know it first hand isn't something to get worked up over.

I would work for justice for any incest victim, any rape victim any child slave victim - I can in no way directly know what they went through - how you go from that to "despise" is beyond me.

[fuzzalow]

I will keep this post targeted to the topic of sexism rather than drift into a racism discussion. Both "ism"s are equally deplorable.

Many different views because there are many different spheres of society. Segmented by race and gender to some degree but IMO the crucial determinant factor is economics, and as such its corollary, socio-economic class distinctions.

Sexism is a form of oppression with misogyny simply one of the tools of its conveyance. From more overt and systemic forms of coercion and control as evident in authoritarian societies in the interpreted forms of shariah law to the lesser violent forms of sexism found in segments of western culture. Sexism is not an intrinsic behavior to the species, it is adopted and adapted as the means of dominance and control. I abhor anecdotal evidence. Bring not a narrow view based on anecdotal experience but rather view the reality through a broader perspective.

The cover article in this weeks The Economist is entitled "The Weaker Sex - No jobs, no family, no prospects: Men Adrift - Badly educated men in rich countries have not adapted well to trade, technology or feminism". I paraphrased the article's title here because it pretty much summarizes the articles coverage. And still, this treatise is just one aspect of sexism although a much more intractable fixture to modern society than the crudity of locker room & bro-dude behaviour which I see as borne out from ignorance and insecurity. And yet, the desired result is the same whether enforced by the Saudi Arabian Religous Police or the attitudes of ignorant boys & men. And that desired result is in maintaining privilege based not to merit but from gender. FWIW, the only fixture where normal meritocratic gender equality is in effect in Saudi society is found within ARAMCO, the Saudi state run oil & energy company. Evidence of the value of intellectual capital regardless as to origin for when it really counts!

I agree it gets messy when sexism is looked at as a byproduct in the functions and readiness in the military. But even there the attitudes must change because there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle after the legal challenges have been upheld and the legal definitions have permitted equal gender access to all military jobs. These rights to equal access are safeguarded and guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution under the 14th Amendment pertaining to the clauses on the equal protection of all citizenry. Citizenry which is not further defined or qualified as to gender. So crazy or not, come hell or high water, the military is stuck with it and has got to find a way to make it work.

[malcolm]

Lists of people who don't need to be defended

1. White People
2. Car drivers
3. Bankers
4. Politicians


all people need to be defended irrespective of category. Divisions like the above only lead to racism and separatism.

[velomonkey]

all people need to be defended irrespective of category. Divisions like the above only lead to racism and separatism.


Come on, Bro. Of course all people need to be defended - I didn't mean defended in the legal sense, I meant defended as they need to look inward and see that they have privilege. Do you really, for one second, think that by posting this I literally feel these people should be hung? Come on. The list is in jest and is, in fact, a list of people who are given advantages. It is humor and I reject the notion that such statements lead to racism.

[Black Dog]

I see you have never been deployed or in the military. Scrumping in the bunk rooms is a HUGE problem on deployed ships. It creates all sorts of issues, not the least of which is jealosy, favoritism, people making wrong decisions, on a WAR SHIP that will cause people to get hurt or killed. There are BIG issues, and it continues today.

Fool around when on the beach, on liberty, but not when at sea..but that's a tough sell, in spite of the consequences..like being fired, discharged, losing all your benefits..maybe even brig time.

Fair enough. Never been in the service and I don't even pretend to have any special insight despite the fact that I am son of a career submariner. All human relationships create jealousy, favouritism, spite, etc, but none so much as sexual, point taken.

[93legendti]

Well, seems to work in some countries. Canada has women in combat roles, in fact we had a female officer killed in combat in Afghanistan. She was an excellent officer and well respected by her troops. She did not have to become a "man" to earn and receive her position in the forces. How many men, once in, these male dominated jobs that have stringient physical entrance requirements would pass the entrance tests if they had to take them again?

Combat infantry and elite forces are 2 very different things. It didn't work HERE, in the RANGERS. Doesn't matter if it worked "there".

I am all for women in the military if they can fulfill the operational duties of the Unit. In Israel, women are border guards, attack dog handlers, pilots, medics, Intelligence and combat intelligence snipers. When it comes to "combat", they are in mixed infantry units with the men who have lower physical profiles and assigned to quiet borders. In crack units/special forces as another fighter? "Not a good idea".

WOMEN are not in the paratroopers, Maglan, Shayetet, Duvedevan, Sayeret Matkal, Shaldag, or any recon unit, let alone Givati, Nahal, Kfir or Golani.

In Operation Protective Edge, 4 women medics were in Gaza. One stabilized my friend after a sniper hit him in the legs. She did great.

[malcolm]

Come on, Bro. Of course all people need to be defended - I didn't mean defended in the legal sense, I meant defended as they need to look inward and see that they have privilege. Do you really, for one second, think that by posting this I literally feel these people should be hung? Come on. The list is in jest and is, in fact, a list of people who are given advantages. It is humor and I reject the notion that such statements lead to racism.

Never said hung never even said punished. You chose to publish your list separating out people not me. I have no idea what you intended. I just know lists and separating people into groups never leads anywhere good. We are all more alike than different and all groups have both good and bad. All groups are capable of hurting one another. The sooner we become a group of humans vs brown or white or yellow or what have you humans the better off we'll all be.
I didn't mean to imply you were racist I don't know you and suspect from what I do know of you that you are not. Maybe I overreacted to your list as you overreacted to my response.
Peace

[malcolm]

Combat infantry and elite forces are 2 very different things. It didn't work HERE, in the RANGERS. Doesn't matter if it worked "there".

I am all for women in the military if they can fulfill the operational duties of the Unit. In Israel, women are border guards, attack dog handlers, pilots, medics, Intelligence and combat intelligence snipers. When it comes to "combat", they are in mixed infantry units with the men who have lower physical profiles and assigned to quiet borders. In crack units/special forces as another fighter? "Not a good idea".

WOMEN are not in the paratroopers, Maglan, Shayetet, Duvedevan, Sayeret Matkal, Shaldag, or any recon unit, let alone Givati, Nahal, Kfir or Golani.

In Operation Protective Edge, 4 women medics were in Gaza. One stabilized my friend after a sniper hit him in the legs. She did great.

Not sure how I feel about this. First off I don't really consider army rangers elite, no offense to army rangers. I don't see where on the surface women couldn't do what elite or small units do. The primary difference is commitment to training. The don't need super human strength. The do need considerably above average fitness and mental toughness, but women can achieve that.
I've thought about it in the past and initially didn't think it a good idea. Not sure where I stand now.
I do think the biggest problem with women in true combat situations including small units in fluid evolving fire fights is more related to the men than the women. Men tend to act and behave in a different way around women and are bred from the cradle to be more protective of women. If you inherently act differently toward a fellow soldier it may well change the dynamic of the group and the effectiveness.

[witcombusa]

I do think the biggest problem with women in true combat situations including small units in fluid evolving fire fights is more related to the men than the women. Men tend to act and behave in a different way around women and are bred from the cradle to be more protective of women. If you inherently act differently toward a fellow soldier it may well change the dynamic of the group and the effectiveness.

Tell that to the 3 to 4 million women beaten by their husbands, ex-husbands, or male lovers each year. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the United States, more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.

As far as women in combat, I would think they should know better. Men obviously don't seem to get it.

[Dead Man]

First off I don't really consider army rangers elite, no offense to army rangers.

Oh?

[93legendti]

Rangers are Elite. The Military says so. Not the same as Seals, GBSF, etc., but elite.

"The 75th Ranger Regiment is a light infantry unit under the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC). Light infantry is a select group of soldiers who originally opened the way for the main infantry using various delay tactics to slow the enemy lines down.

Today the Rangers are extensively trained to infiltrate enemy lines by land, sea, and air. They execute special missions and operations. The 75th Ranger Regiment is an extremely flexible, well trained, and deployable airborne unit used for special operations. They perform a number of highly specialized missions including direct action, reconnaissance, hostage rescue, clandestine roles, and site exploitation.

Rangers are the spearhead of the Army's special operations forces. Ready to deploy by land, air and sea anywhere in the world at a moment's notice to respond to the latest contingency or crisis. Rangers specialize in rapid infantry assault, night fighting and airfield seizure. The Rangers are trained to infiltrate and exit by air, land or sea and have the capability to conduct conventional or special light-infantry operations. In many cases, the Ranger platoon will serve as the security element, the outer cordon, and often act as the Quick Reaction Force (QRF).

The 75th Ranger Regiment plans and conducts special military operations in support of US policy and objectives. The unit is specially organized, equipped, and trained soldiers provide the National Command Authority (NCA) the capability to rapidly deploy a credible military force to any region of the world. The Ranger Regiment specializes in executing Direct Action (DA) missions. Moreover, they are the Army's elite force for raid missions and airfield seizure. The Regiment maintains a high level of alert - a battalion is able to mobilize and deploy as quickly as 18 hours after notification (N+18). Because of their alert status, they must also maintain the following capabilities: infiltration/exfiltration by land, air, and sea; recovery of personnel, and special light-infantry operations. The Ranger battalions also train for other actions listed in their Mission Essential Task List (METL), which includes movement to contact, ambush, reconnaissance, airborne assaults, air assaults, and hasty defense..."

If they aren't, it doesn't say much for the women who couldn't make it.

[gdw]

Legs.... No offense Malcolm but if you've never served in an Army Infantry unit your opinion of their elite forces doesn't carry much weight. Kinda like white guys talking about what it's like to be black.

[Dead Man]

We need to differentiate between Rangers and "rangers." Wearing the TAB, contrary to overwelming popular opinion, even among many in the military does NOT make you a Ranger. It means you kissed your commander's ass enough that he sent you to Ranger school, you somehow managed to suffer through (or kissed enough ass again) to pass, then went back to your own weak ass unit. You don't even have to be airborne qualified to go to Ranger school, last I checked.

A Ranger is someone who has volunteered for, and passed the current iteration of the indoctrination phase (was called RIP when I was in, they call it something else now), and has been assigned to one of three Ranger battalions or the Ranger Training Brigade. He IS airborne qualified, and is becoming one of the baddest mother ····ers in the US military.

For a Ranger, Ranger School is not even required - you could, in theory, go an entire career as an Airborne Ranger, traveling the world jumping out of planes in the black of night, going on missions and deployments and ····ing ···· up across the globe with your fellow Ranger compatriots... but you cannot take on a leadership roll without passing Ranger School. No team leader, no squad leader... You're just stuck, and probably suck bad enough that you'll be rolled out of the unit anyway. That's the importance of Ranger school - to develop RANGERS into leaders.. and all Airbone Rangers are supposed to be leaders.

Those "half" of all candidates who don't pass Ranger School? Those are the NON-Rangers who kissed their commander's ass. And then flunked out.

[malcolm]

I don't consider rangers any different from a marine fast battalion, but than an average infantry unit but to me not elite. Delta, Seals some marine recon units are elite. I've been around and trained will all the above and that's my feelings. If the army calls them elite then elite they must be and I stand corrected. Again I mean no disrespect to the rangers, thank god or whatever you believe we have them. I just never considered them elite.

To take what I was saying and relating that to domestic abuse is absolutely Ludacris, but I would expect nothing less from you.

I don't think most men I know would identify themselves with men that would abuse women. I know most soldiers wouldn't. I still think men, normal men act differently around women and there lies the problem, if there is one.

Marines often went to ranger school when I was in and you don't have to jump to do ranger school. Lots of army dentists and doctors have the ranger badge. It's still a very demanding school not to be scoffed at.

[witcombusa]

I don't consider rangers any different from a marine fast battalion, but than an average infantry unit but to me not elite. Delta, Seals some marine recon units are elite. I've been around and trained will all the above and that's my feelings. If the army calls them elite then elite they must be and I stand corrected. Again I mean no disrespect to the rangers, thank god or whatever you believe we have them. I just never considered them elite.

To take what I was saying and relating that to domestic abuse is absolutely Ludacris, but I would expect nothing less from you.

I don't think most men I know would identify themselves with men that would abuse women. I know most soldiers wouldn't. I still think men, normal men act differently around women and there lies the problem, if there is one.

Marines often went to ranger school when I was in and you don't have to jump to do ranger school. Lots of army dentists and doctors have the ranger badge. It's still a very demanding school not to be scoffed at.

You may well have a point there. Aren't most of the sexual assault cases now coming out of the military men on men?

[zennmotion]

Combat infantry and elite forces are 2 very different things. It didn't work HERE, in the RANGERS. Doesn't matter if it worked "there".

I am all for women in the military if they can fulfill the operational duties of the Unit. In Israel, women are border guards, attack dog handlers, pilots, medics, Intelligence and combat intelligence snipers. When it comes to "combat", they are in mixed infantry units with the men who have lower physical profiles and assigned to quiet borders. In crack units/special forces as another fighter? "Not a good idea".

WOMEN are not in the paratroopers, Maglan, Shayetet, Duvedevan, Sayeret Matkal, Shaldag, or any recon unit, let alone Givati, Nahal, Kfir or Golani.

In Operation Protective Edge, 4 women medics were in Gaza. One stabilized my friend after a sniper hit him in the legs. She did great.

Not in to pick an argument because I have no military background. However, I have recently returned from Erbil (Kurdistan/N Iraq) where the perspective is somewhat different. First, I can tell you by experience that the Erbil area is the most 'secure' in an unsecure territory, despite it's geographic proximity to ISIL strongholds. Second, the local commonly held view is that it's the women Peshmerga militia units that are pretty much the only reliable counterbalance to ISIL expansion. It's partly due to ISIL fear of women fighters (you won't reach heaven if you're killed by a woman) but it's also true that the women militias are at least as effective as the male units- this is a local belief about their own women from people who have experienced armed conflict for decades. The Iraqi government units can't seem to pull it together despite overwhelmingly superior numbers, and even the superior Iranian Shiite militia units fear running into the women Peshmergas, despite having ISIL as a common enemy. So although I can't opine about your post from direct experience, it is an opportunity to add another perspective from my own indirect observations from recent travels.

[gdw]

No whitcomusa, the report you're thinking of actually references assaults among paranoid gun loving libertarians.:banana:

This thread really is really drifting......

[bigbill]

You may well have a point there. Aren't most of the sexual assault cases now coming out of the military men on men?

Can't find anything to support that. Most seem to be men on women. I retired from the Navy after 27 years in 2012. Sexual assault is easier to report now than it was several years ago. I had female sailors who worked for me get sexually harassed and one was assaulted. The process was quick, the harassment was handled within the command and the assault was handled with a courts marshal and some jail time. As a leader, I had to make sure there was no repercussions against the female sailors.

I was an instructor when women were brought back into the nuclear power program. This was a result of Clinton allowing women back on combat ships. There were women who were a good fit for the military and others who were not. There were lots of pregnancies early on which at the time, would allow the female sailor to get out. It took a while for things to stabilize. In the 17 years I served after women were reintroduced, I worked with some great female sailors and some that had no business being there. The same with the male sailors. But, on the whole, there are more men suited for the military than women. Whether it's biological, how children were raised, or preconceived notions, it is the reality.

As far as white males, I am one and I refused to be vilified or included in a broad brush attempt to lump it all on one group.

[malcolm]

Can't find anything to support that. Most seem to be men on women. I retired from the Navy after 27 years in 2012. Sexual assault is easier to report now than it was several years ago. I had female sailors who worked for me get sexually harassed and one was assaulted. The process was quick, the harassment was handled within the command and the assault was handled with a courts marshal and some jail time. As a leader, I had to make sure there was no repercussions against the female sailors.

I was an instructor when women were brought back into the nuclear power program. This was a result of Clinton allowing women back on combat ships. There were women who were a good fit for the military and others who were not. There were lots of pregnancies early on which at the time, would allow the female sailor to get out. It took a while for things to stabilize. In the 17 years I served after women were reintroduced, I worked with some great female sailors and some that had no business being there. The same with the male sailors. But, on the whole, there are more men suited for the military than women. Whether it's biological, how children were raised, or preconceived notions, it is the reality.

As far as white males, I am one and I refused to be vilified or included in a broad brush attempt to lump it all on one group.

+1
whitcombusa is not much more than a troll always the contrarian and seldom adding anything other than extremism bordering on the inane.

[93legendti]

Not in to pick an argument because I have no military background. However, I have recently returned from Erbil (Kurdistan/N Iraq) where the perspective is somewhat different. First, I can tell you by experience that the Erbil area is the most 'secure' in an unsecure territory, despite it's geographic proximity to ISIL strongholds. Second, the local commonly held view is that it's the women Peshmerga militia units that are pretty much the only reliable counterbalance to ISIL expansion. It's partly due to ISIL fear of women fighters (you won't reach heaven if you're killed by a woman) but it's also true that the women militias are at least as effective as the male units- this is a local belief about their own women from people who have experienced armed conflict for decades. The Iraqi government units can't seem to pull it together despite overwhelmingly superior numbers, and even the superior Iranian Shiite militia units fear running into the women Peshmergas, despite having ISIL as a common enemy. So although I can't opine about your post from direct experience, it is an opportunity to add another perspective from my own indirect observations from recent travels.

I have no qualms with your post. I was trying to convey in my post my support and respect for women who are warriors.

The women you reference seem to be performing general infantry tasks and doing extremely well. I support them 100% and hope they wipe out ISIS.

But, I don't think they are performing elite warrior tasks.

[zennmotion]

The women you reference seem to be performing general infantry tasks and doing extremely well. I support them 100% and hope they wipe out ISIS.

But, I don't think they are performing elite warrior tasks.

Yep, well, tell your congressman to support military aid to Kurdistan and take the PKK off the terrorism list (our diplomatic gift to Turkey), unless you want to put our elite warriors in harm's way. Because unless you want to support Iran's militias- which would be insane IMO, the Peshmerga's just about all we got to work with at the moment against ISIL. OK back to the thread, where was it again?

[oldpotatoe]

Not sure how I feel about this. First off I don't really consider army rangers elite, no offense to army rangers. I don't see where on the surface women couldn't do what elite or small units do. The primary difference is commitment to training. The don't need super human strength. The do need considerably above average fitness and mental toughness, but women can achieve that.
I've thought about it in the past and initially didn't think it a good idea. Not sure where I stand now.
I do think the biggest problem with women in true combat situations including small units in fluid evolving fire fights is more related to the men than the women. Men tend to act and behave in a different way around women and are bred from the cradle to be more protective of women. If you inherently act differently toward a fellow soldier it may well change the dynamic of the group and the effectiveness.

Plus living in the field for 30-45 days with NO fresh water for things like showers. Water hours on a ship was a real problem. Sorry for bringing up biology, but it is an issue in the field and on a ship.

[malcolm]

Plus living in the field for 30-45 days with NO fresh water for things like showers. Water hours on a ship was a real problem. Sorry for bringing up biology, but it is an issue in the field and on a ship.

I hear you brother. I spent many days on water hours while in the Persian gulf when the hostages were held in Iran. I remember well the oh so refreshing salt water shower.

[witcombusa]

+1
whitcombusa is not much more than a troll always the contrarian and seldom adding anything other than extremism bordering on the inane.

Perhaps I have a different perspective than you.

Imagine that :eek:

[93legendti]

Yep, well, tell your congressman to support military aid to Kurdistan and take the PKK off the terrorism list (our diplomatic gift to Turkey), unless you want to put our elite warriors in harm's way. Because unless you want to support Iran's militias- which would be insane IMO, the Peshmerga's just about all we got to work with at the moment against ISIL. OK back to the thread, where was it again?

I do and I have. Turkey isn't our friend...at least Erdogan isn't and neither is Iran.