Posted on 02/20/2014 6:37:21 AM PST by Personal Responsibility
In a preview of the U.S. military’s planned integration of females into combat positions, female skiers and snowboarders have been wiping out at disproportionate numbers at the Extreme Park in Sochi. Unlike traditional ski runs, which vary in difficulty according to whether they are designed for males or females, the course for highflying snowboarders and freestyle skiers is largely unisex: Females are expected to navigate the same jumps as the males. The result has been an avalanche of female falls and injuries: Of the 22 accidents that either forced athletes out of the competition or required medical attention on the final run, 16 involved female skiers, reports the New York Times, even though far fewer females than males actually essay the course.
For the Times, this state of affairs presents both an insuperable puzzle and a painful dilemma. The “question” why females are crashing more is a “difficult one,” claims the paper’s male sports reporter. Really? As a purely factual matter, the answer is simple: Females have less strength and muscular control than males, making them less able to navigate the greater physical challenges of the extreme course.
How to properly respond to the female crash tally, however, is difficult. Ordinarily, anything bad happening to females is a sure sign that they are being victimized by sexism. So the default feminist reaction to the female wipe-outs is to blame the course designers. Kim Lamarre, a Canadian bronze medalist in slope style skiing, is happy to oblige: “Most of the courses are built for the big show, for the men,” she told the Times. “I think they could do more to make it safer for women.”
Uh-oh! Gender-studies red flag! “Making it safer for women,” as in: recognizing female difference and adopting a chivalric attitude towards the female sex? Big, big problem. The Olympics’ history of “trying to protect women from the perils of some sports” by creating easier ski courses is “sexist, perhaps,” agonizes the Times’ reporter. And yet, the “equality” at Extreme Park comes at the “possible detriment of the female participants.”
The true feminist will blithely have it both ways, indifferent to the contradiction: The unisex course is sexist because it injures women and trying to protect women from injury is sexist. Likewise, feminists toggle at will between the position that there should be gender quotas for women in political positions, say, because females bring a special sensibility to political problems, and the position that men and women are identical in every way and thus that any disparities in outcomes — whether in advanced math and physics attainment or in the predilection for public debate — must be the result of sexism. As injuries build up for female combat soldiers, expect to see the same confused thinking. The Army will be blamed for not doing enough to protect females while also being pressured to pretend that females are the absolute equal of men and thus need no protection.
Make the government give them money.
Good luck making warfighting "safer for women".
Men seem to be able to grotesquely outsize themselves while females just look like husky teenage boys
Gravity is sexist.
Reality is sexist.
Men seem to be able to grotesquely outsize themselves while females just look like husky teenage boys
I remember a story from the first Gulf War back in ‘92. 50% of the female sailors on one particular Navy ship serving in the Persian Gulf were declared to be “casualties” as they became pregnant. Some said they deliberately became pregnant to avoid being in a combat zone.
Expect similar results when women are put in combat situations in real shooting wars.
My, how times have changed. I seem to remember a relatively recent Winter Olympics (maybe 1994 in Lillehammer?) where some of the top female skiers in the world were threatening to withdraw from the alpine ski events because they thought the courses laid out on the slopes were too easy.
Unless one is willing to recognize what has been going on, over the past couple of generations--and that is that there is an ideological war being waged against facing the realities of human existence;--there can be no real understanding of the mischief being wrought.
For a general look at the problem, see Compassion Or Compulsion?.
For a specific look at the Feminist aspect, Feminist Delusion.
The fact is that no definable group benefits from the Egalitarian fantasy world. None. It promotes hate, not compassion. It diverts people's attention from what they do best, to envy, jealousy & coveting the earned achievements of others. It is destroying the future of much of mankind, and is being sold by tactics similar to those that worked for Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin & Hitler: The Big Lie, coupled with the brutal suppression of dissent.
William Flax
When I was in the Army, females could shoot as well as men, and had endurance equal to men. Until you loaded them up with gear.
So the strength issue is what it is. Particularly arm and chest strength.
So rolls for women in the Military certainly exist. But physical differences exist. Length of body and arms can be a problem when going over an obstacle as well.
Say it ain't so! I thought there would be at least a dozen females drafted into the NFL this year.
Egalitarianism is a neurotic disease. It is driven by compulsion, not reason; not compassion. It inspires hate, resentment for the reality that we are not all alike; do not achieve all alike--the very opposite of noble purpose.
William Flax
The women might be having a tougher time, but why haven’t they even mentioned the suffering these courses are causing the minorities?
Cultural Marxism is the personification of down the rabbit hole insanity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.