US Military's discriminatary new standards: Female soldiers will now allowed lipstick, nail polish, and locs

[Metaphor]

You said:
Still don't think that's an accurate claim.

Still.
I said "still" because this was not the first claim you made.
Scroll a teensy bit further. You were very specific. And exaggerated

Which you then went and found support for....for me.

If you feel chuffed that you correctly predicted that the nail polish allowed for women did not include 'extreme' colours, I am glad you have found something to be proud of in your day.

you misunderstand.
I'm chuffed that YOU proved i had nore understanding of the Army's actual position, sight unseen, than you did after reading the press release.

I'm glad for you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Still.
I said "still" because this was not the first claim you made.
Scroll a teensy bit further. You were very specific. And exaggerated

Which you then went and found support for....for me.
you misunderstand.
I'm chuffed that YOU proved i had nore understanding of the Army's actual position, sight unseen, than you did after reading the press release.

I'm glad for you.

What was it you just ssid?

I doubt you're honestly glad for me. But you can pretend it's a problem for me, rather than your error, so at least you're consistent.
And proves my other point....

 

[Metaphor]

Still.
I said "still" because this was not the first claim you made.
Scroll a teensy bit further. You were very specific. And exaggerated

Which you then went and found support for....for me.
you misunderstand.
I'm chuffed that YOU proved i had nore understanding of the Army's actual position, sight unseen, than you did after reading the press release.

I'm glad for you.

What was it you just ssid?

I doubt you're honestly glad for me. But you can pretend it's a problem for me, rather than your error, so at least you're consistent.
And proves my other point....

I said I was mistaken about what you were contesting.

You see, I thought you were contesting the idea that there was no sex discrimination, which would have been a substantive challenge to the OP.

Instead, you were contesting that the article describing women as being allowed to wear 'colors' meant I needed to be challenged when I said women wear allowed to wear 'any colour'.

I freely confess I was wrong about what you were contesting, because it did not even occur to me that you were quibbling about something so moronically tangential to the substance of the post.

I am glad you had your little victory.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You still haven't figured out your actual error and you're talking DOWN to me.

Toodles.

 

[Jarhyn]

You still haven't figured out your actual error and you're talking DOWN to me.

Toodles.

And that is why I don't take Metaphor off ignore. Besides, other folks will comment about the idiocy enough that I'll get enough of the idiocy he spews to leverage on.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And that is why I don't take Metaphor off ignore. Besides, other folks will comment about the idiocy enough that I'll get enough of the idiocy he spews to leverage on.

Yeah, i knew i should not have.
Someone who insists sports acknowledge that men and women are different thinks it's also crucial for the military to treat everyone the exact same probably should be quoted on FSTDT but not engaged.

 

[Patooka]

I love how the person least affected by this is the most outraged. That's the internet, right there.

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah, i knew i should not have.
Someone who insists sports acknowledge that men and women are different thinks it's also crucial for the military to treat everyone the exact same probably should be quoted on FSTDT but not engaged.

That you think
i) separating people by sex for sports teams
is incompatible with
ii) not discriminating by sex in dress standards in the military

says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

 

[Metaphor]

I love how the person least affected by this is the most outraged. That's the internet, right there.

Do you believe the military should discriminate by sex in dress standards as per the OP?

 

[Patooka]

I love how the person least affected by this is the most outraged. That's the internet, right there.

Do you believe the military should discriminate by sex in dress standards as per the OP?

Yes. I believe that passionately and am willing to die for my beliefs. If the military can't discriminate by sex sex then we have nothing but anarchy and then the communists win.

 

[Jayjay]

Not a good idea. Soon, America's enemies will be wearing lipstick and nail polish too. And they might escalate with wigs and high heels.

 

[RVonse]

Yes, these military standards discriminate against men. I know recruiting and retaining quality personnel is a problem right now. And, in the grand scheme of real problems within the military right now, this ranks way below the problem of suicides and rape.

So forgive me if this causes me to yawn.

I agree with Laughing Dog, there are much bigger fish to fry.

This: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/world/asia/china-masculinity-schoolboys.html should be a much bigger concern for the military. In order to remain competitive our military actually needs masculine men. And the Democrat party,their identity politics, and other do gooders are rapidly ruining our next generation of boys.

You say that, but even in low-conformity populatioms, non cis-gendered people are about 2% of the population. The remainder are, at least endocrinologically, absolutely unaltered. In the population at large, that number is a whopping 0.42%.

So how exactly have we ruined a "whole generation" of boys? By teaching them to value the opinions of others? By teaching them to treat all people equally? By teaching them that it's OK to have emotions?

Because to me that's a recipe for stronger cooperation, better unit cohesion, and better mental health (less PTSD). That's a recipe for a stronger military, not a weaker one.

But the democrats are not treating all people equally, that is the point. Because if they were treating all people equally, they would not punish boys for being boys but not punish the girls for being girls. And they would not stereo type cast all boys as future serial rapists. And they would not punish boys for being risk takers and exhibiting aggressive behavior. Both extremely desirable qualities needed for a strong military.

Yes, the your unit cohesion is important but not like those other "male" qualities.

 

[Jarhyn]

You say that, but even in low-conformity populatioms, non cis-gendered people are about 2% of the population. The remainder are, at least endocrinologically, absolutely unaltered. In the population at large, that number is a whopping 0.42%.

So how exactly have we ruined a "whole generation" of boys? By teaching them to value the opinions of others? By teaching them to treat all people equally? By teaching them that it's OK to have emotions?

Because to me that's a recipe for stronger cooperation, better unit cohesion, and better mental health (less PTSD). That's a recipe for a stronger military, not a weaker one.

But the democrats are not treating all people equally, that is the point. Because if they were treating all people equally, they would not punish boys for being boys but not punish the girls for being girls. And they would not stereo type cast all boys as future serial rapists. And they would not punish boys for being risk takers and exhibiting aggressive behavior. Both extremely desirable qualities needed for a strong military.

Yes, the your unit cohesion is important but not like those other "male" qualities.

For "being boys"? So, being a violent unemotional asshole is a part of being a boy? If so, then the military absolutely doesn't need them. Like, the actual veterans here, Keith and I, are telling you point blank, from a position of knowledge and experience, what the military is actually served by.

You, in your armchair, are complaining like a fucking Shapiro comic lamenting about it, and it's hilarious and disappointing. Hilariously disappointing, if you will.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, i knew i should not have.
Someone who insists sports acknowledge that men and women are different thinks it's also crucial for the military to treat everyone the exact same probably should be quoted on FSTDT but not engaged.

That you think
i) separating people by sex for sports teams
is incompatible with
ii) not discriminating by sex in dress standards in the military

says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

Or it says a lot about the depth of Keith's thinking and a lack of depth in your thinking. I leave it to the readership to determine for themselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, i knew i should not have.
Someone who insists sports acknowledge that men and women are different thinks it's also crucial for the military to treat everyone the exact same probably should be quoted on FSTDT but not engaged.

That you think
i) separating people by sex for sports teams
is incompatible with
ii) not discriminating by sex in dress standards in the military

says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

Or it says a lot about the depth of Keith's thinking and a lack of depth in your thinking. I leave it to the readership to determine for themselves.

Like, he can't seem to understand how and why allowing a bimodally distributed population with bimodally distinct cultures to have culturally distinct standards for presentation and bearing is desirable.

He insists that men and women have essential differences, but then refuses to accept the implications those (not actually essential) differences have, culturally, in such an immersive environment as the military.

Because I'm a lazy bastard, though, and I'm not going to do it, I'm wondering if anyone less lazy could dig up Metaphor's posts from back when the military opened combat roles to women, and ended the gay ban?

I expect it would be worth at least a few ironic laughs.

 

[ronburgundy]

The different standards are the product of an interaction between the capitalist profiteering military industry and a right wing conservative, trans-phobic mentality, which is closely allied with the sexist and homophobic mentality that tried to keep women and gays out of the military. The modern military is big business and they lose money when they lose people willing to enlist. Fewer males are enlisting, so they need women in their ranks. Dress codes that prohibit features of traditional gender norms for women can keep many females from enlisting/re-enlisting. So, the Army is engaging in what amounts to a marketing campaign to attract more female recruits. But the right wing conservatives that dominate the military won't tolerate men being allowed to adopt traditionally female gender norms, so they are not allowed the same choices the women are. Given the number of transphobes among military males who would react negatively to allowing males to violate gender norms, there is no possible net gain to enlistment and thus profits by allowing males to have the same increase choices that females are being given.

 

[Metaphor]

Or it says a lot about the depth of Keith's thinking and a lack of depth in your thinking. I leave it to the readership to determine for themselves.

Like, he can't seem to understand how and why allowing a bimodally distributed population with bimodally distinct cultures to have culturally distinct standards for presentation and bearing is desirable.

He insists that men and women have essential differences, but then refuses to accept the implications those (not actually essential) differences have, culturally, in such an immersive environment as the military.

Because I'm a lazy bastard, though, and I'm not going to do it, I'm wondering if anyone less lazy could dig up Metaphor's posts from back when the military opened combat roles to women, and ended the gay ban?

I expect it would be worth at least a few ironic laughs.

I implore the board not to do Jarhyn's work for him, but I'm certainly in a position to tell you what I argued on the subject.

I wasn't on the board during don't ask don't tell, but I find the idea of banning homosexuals from the army without merit.

And combat roles for women: I would have been very much for allowing it, as long as there were not different, lower standards for women, and as long as the standards were not dropped for everyone solely to allow women to qualify.

 

[Keith&Co.]

/\ ...pretty much....

Given the number of transphobes among military males who would react negatively to allowing males to violate gender norms,

Yeah, those people really lost their shit over the earring change. They don't want to hear about 'it doesn't signify what you think it does,' or have any time for how historically, a ring in one ear signified circumnavigating the world one time, the other ear denoted surviving a ship sinking.
Nope. Only gays wear them, ir want to wear them. Took a long time for those guys to retire, or shut up as they became an obvious minority, and be replaced by a generation more in touch with the outside world.

Same thing is going on with gays, and will go on with Trans.

 

[Metaphor]

The different standards are the product of an interaction between the capitalist profiteering military industry and a right wing conservative, trans-phobic mentality, which is closely allied with the sexist and homophobic mentality that tried to keep women and gays out of the military. The modern military is big business and they lose money when they lose people willing to enlist. Fewer males are enlisting, so they need women in their ranks. Dress codes that prohibit features of traditional gender norms for women can keep many females from enlisting/re-enlisting. So, the Army is engaging in what amounts to a marketing campaign to attract more female recruits. But the right wing conservatives that dominate the military won't tolerate men being allowed to adopt traditionally female gender norms, so they are not allowed the same choices the women are. Given the number of transphobes among military males who would react negatively to allowing males to violate gender norms, there is no possible net gain to enlistment and thus profits by allowing males to have the same increase choices that females are being given.

It beggars belief that the army will not allow a male soldier to wear red lipstick and red nail polish, but if that selfsame soldier says "I am a transwoman", they'll be able to crack out the Revlon ColorStay in Vigorous Violet and pairing it with essie's gilded goddess on their nails.

 

[Jarhyn]

/\ ...pretty much....

Given the number of transphobes among military males who would react negatively to allowing males to violate gender norms,

Yeah, those people really lost their shit over the earring change. They don't want to hear about 'it doesn't signify what you think it does,' or have any time for how historically, a ring in one ear signified circumnavigating the world one time, the other ear denoted surviving a ship sinking.
Nope. Only gays wear them, ir want to wear them. Took a long time for those guys to retire, or shut up as they became an obvious minority, and be replaced by a generation more in touch with the outside world.

Same thing is going on with gays, and will go on with Trans.

Not to mention the value at that point in time of having a bit of gold on your person. A golden earring was often the difference between being shipwrecked and destitute, or shipwrecked and capable of getting back on your feet.