Aceflyer

LoL, indeed. You have a point, I suppose.

That's not that rare either, plenty of women enjoy programming and plenty of women have names that start with a 'C'. Caitlyn, Callie, Camille, Candace, Candy, Cindy, Cara, Cari, Carla, Carmen, Carlotta, Carol, C!@#$%^&*ie, Catherine, Cecelia, Celestine, Celine, Charis, Charlotte, Chas!@#$%^&*y, Chelsea, Cher, Chloe, Cindy, Christina, Christine, Cynthia, Claire, Clarissa, Claudia, Colette, Corina, Corine, Courtney, Crystal, Cyan, Cyrille, and variants thereof, and I could go on...

My political views may be quite different from Aileron's, but I would still prefer if he came back alive and well. I wouldn't wish IRL death or serious injury to even my worst enemies in the Continuum community.

May I ask who would be answering these questions?

There's that.

LoL, the old Army/Marines rivalry rears its head again.

Indeed. rootbear75 would probably benefit then, as he has stated, if he joined the Army.

Good luck Jer.

What Russky said.

I hope you mean the Navy. Marines are usually the front runners in everything. Either way, good luck with your career Aileron. ^^ What Purge said. Give 'em !@#$%^&* Aileron.

Since I saw one of those quotes in Aileron's signature, no offense to Aileron, but I figured not everyone was as skeptical about that email as they perhaps should have been.

Given all the recent discussion (and given all the discussion that is likely yet to come in the coming months) about the US 2008 Presidential campaign, I wanted to just point out a few facts about the famous misleading Obama email that's been circulating on the Web: That's a false quote. The actual quote is (along with the context, which is important for understanding the quote): As can be seen above, Obama did not say that he would "stand with the Muslims," rather, he stated that he would stand with 'them', referring back to his mention of "Arab and Pakistani Americans." Further, by "ugly direction" Obama clearly meant stuff like the internments of Japanese Americans during World War II. Again this is a doctored quote. The actual quote is (along with the context, which is important for understanding the quote): The doctored quote makes it seem as if Obama was racist; the actual quote makes it clear that the race 'problem' was raised by "the man" himself, not by Obama.

No offense Aileron, but I think that's an overgeneralized stereotype. I don't think all men in the US should be expected to have the courage to join the military merely because they are male. I agree entirely, BaK-. While I respect your decision to join the military, and salute your courage, I don't think there's anything wrong with civilians analyzing the military's policies. Heck, the US military is led by a civilian: the President of the US.

Might I have some actual proof that no single woman in the US could even possibly be at least as qualified as the least qualified man serving in the combat branches? I think we need to be looking at what is ultimately important: strength, endurance, and so forth. Body fat is merely used as an indicator of physical fitness, and due to biological differences between men and women, a man and a woman who have the same strength, endurance, and so forth may very well have different body fat percentages. In the end, what is important is not body fat percentage, but strength and endurance, and so forth. And I am confident there are women in the US who would at least outperform, in terms of strength, endurance, etc., the least qualified man serving in the combat branches. Again, as I've stated before, probably more men than women would be qualified to serve in the combat branches. But there are women who can do it, and it is my belief that those women should be allowed to serve in the combat branches if they want to.

I agree. I have never thought that there should be a sudden troop-displacing demographic shift or that recruiters should encourage women to fight on the front lines. I merely believe that female soldiers should have the opportunity to fight on the front lines if they so wish. (Not that it really matters in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars these days, where there really aren't clearly defined front lines and many women have seen and participated in direct combat against enemy forces, but I just think the policies barring women from the front lines should be removed as a matter of principle.) Mmm, indeed. Yes, if we confine our discussion to Western racism and sexism, then I agree that, historically, racism has been worse than sexism. Globally though, it would be harder to tell. Heh, alright. I also agree that neither men or women should be going. I guess what we differ on is that I believe that women shouldn't be treated differently from men, while you appear to believe that women should be more protected or treated more gently than men.

That's not a valid reason. The fact that there are more men in the US armed forces than there are women does not justify discriminatory policies against women in the armed forces. Placing specific soldiers where they are most needed is something that is easily and routinely done in the military, and does not require discriminatory policies against all female soldiers in general. There are also few people of Middle Eastern descent in the US armed forces, for example, and I'm sure they are placed where they are most needed. However, there are no discriminatory policies against all soldiers of Middle Eastern descent in general. Uhuh. So you're going to ignore variations between individuals and discriminate against all female soldiers just because they're female? Frankly that sounds stupid. Make no mistake, I'm not attempting to argue that women should be subjected to lower physical/endurance standards than their male counterparts. All soldiers - male or female - should be subjected to the same criteria for fitness and endurance. Sure, it might well turn out that more men than women meet the criteria. But women who meet the criteria should receive the same rights and privileges as their male colleagues. Again, probably more men than women can do that. But there are definitely women who can do that, and those women should be allowed to do that if they want to. Actually, sexism can get pretty dehumanizing, too. In world history, women have been barred from attaining higher education, barred from voting, barred from holding office, forced to conform to restrictive dress codes, given away in marriage by men to men against their will, barred from joining the military, barred from owning property, forced to be subservient to their spouses (e.g. husbands could legally rape their wives), etc. just for being female. I dunno, but this sounds quite dehumanizing to me. I do agree that racism has, historically, often seemed worse than sexism, but I would contest any claim that racism is more severe than sexism overall. Unusual situations are irrelevant in our analysis here. The fact that people often come together, set differences aside, and work together in times of duress is not relevant to our general discussion about sexism in modern society. Make no mistake, I do not support McCain. And I agree that in light of McCain's record, his experience isn't worth much. But I stand by my previous !@#$%^&*ertions. I personally know quite a few elderly folks who prefer an experienced old candidate to an enthusiastic young candidate.

But don't you think at least some older folks will prefer to vote for an old 'experienced' fellow like McCain rather than a (comparatively) young 'upstart' like Obama? I don't think anyone is arguing that all older folks will vote for McCain, merely that his age will be an appealing factor for many older voters. Similarly, Obama's race will be an appealing factor for many African-Americans, but not all African-Americans will vote for Obama. Actually, racism can also be "merely based on the presumption" of the superiority of one race over another race. In fact, in the US at least, it is easy to identify remnants of obvious, overt, and sanctioned sexism [1]; it is pretty much impossible to identify any remnants of obvious, overt, and sanctioned racism. Just imagine the outcry if anything even remotely similar to that policy existed for, say, African-Americans.

Indeed, NBV has summed it up nicely IMHO. McCain inherently appeals to many older folks the same reason Obama appeals to many African-Americans: because he's one of them. Agreed Lynx.

Mmm, I see. Thanks for your help!

Mmm, yes. I donated two points to you and that showed up in my transactions log.

FYI: Chambahs just confirmed that Snrrrub doesn't administrate SSCW.

This topic isn't just about sexism and racism in the context of Clinton and Obama. This is about sexism and racism in general. That being said, misconceptions about Obama's religion (his middle name probably didn't help) were probably not insignificant in influencing some voters either.

^^ Uh-huh. Er, I'm a bit lost? The amount of scientific fact that is purported to support sexism is pretty much equal to the amount of scientific fact that would support racism if similar reasoning were applied. Race isn't merely skin deep; there are actually clinically significant biological differences between members of different races, as illustrated by this example [1]. More importantly, no scientific fact actually supports racism or sexism. Unless one wishes to argue that biological differences warrant discrimination, in which case, why not discriminate against, say, people with back hair, or people with lactose intolerance? Or even people who are exceptionally tall, or people who have exceptionally large feet? They're biologically different as well.

Sexism and racism are, quite obviously to me at least, equally bad. But even in 2008, it seems that, for some at least, sexism is more acceptable than racism [1] [2]. Personally, I find this rather disturbing. Thoughts?

The My Transactions log in the Points Centre appears to be broken. When I click on it, for example, I get an error message saying: even though I have purchased a custom !@#$%^&*le change recently. (I've also received points from other users before, although I'm not sure if receiving points counts as a 'transaction'.) Please fix if possible. Many thanks guys.