|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should not cloud the issue with fears of rolling back the clock, before we have even made a little progress of our own.
At least two women's groups have just come out in support of ending at least "one" irrational government policy. Not because of gender discrimination but because the policy is simply bad!
We must be careful not of rolling back the clock, but careful of telling women which values they must subscribe to.
Our mission is not to fight a gender war, and manipulate the minds of others but to bring about rational policy in both government and the judiciary by highlighting discrimination against men as irrational policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At first, when I read this article, I thought, "Great! Finally some acknowledgment of physical reality by gender feminists!". But then I checked out the "Concerned Women For America" website. It seems to be run by born-again-Christians.
Just so you know, I'm male, 31, and I'm an equality feminist. I guess I should post more here but there aren't many issues that I would be directly involved in, so I don't feel I could have a truly informed opinion; maybe I should suggest stories more often.
Whatever thoughts I have regarding liberalism, conservatism, Christianity, etc. don't really come into my opinions about military readiness. Either a nation can defend itself or it can't. If it can't it had better have powerful and close allies.
I'm quite sure that coed military units may have "esprit de corps". There are many women who are as passionate and committed to defending their nation as men are. But I do think that reducing standards for physical training among those units will only result in a degradation of the capability of those forces to respond to threats. Most gender-concerned feminists seem to think that the military is there only to provide jobs. Well, they're not. They exist to defend and fight. Anything that takes away from the ability to perform that function hurts the military's ability to perform effectively.
All of this, of course, is obvious. But just as I hate to see the military taken over by PC feminism, I would also hate to see honest discourse about this issue taken over by the conservative Christian right. We non-believers are just as patriotic as they are...perhaps even more so, since it's only in Western civilisation that one can choose not to follow a religion.
Just a thought. Any comments?
"I'll preserve one last male thing in the museum of this world, if I can." -- D.H. Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"born-again-Christians"
Well anyone who is baptised is "born again" that is what baptism is.
WorldNetDaily itself is an evangelical web site.
The other term frequently used for the born-again-Christian "type" is charismatic
*****************************
"...
Theology. Of, relating to, or being a type of Christianity that emphasizes personal religious experience and divinely inspired powers, as of healing, prophecy, and the gift of tongues.
..."
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
********************
I have heard that there are no atheists in a fox hole.
I myself am Baptist. That dosn't mean that I spend my time using religious expressions as verbal punctuation.
Nor do I think that one can use the bible when trying to further the cause of men's rights.
Modern feminists would simply laugh in your face. However, when the feminists are willing to tear your children in half to get them away from you, the wisdom of Solomn (and good medication) can keep you from commiting murder, and, or, suicide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I have heard that there are no atheists in a fox hole. "
I've heard the same thing. But neither you nor I have ever been in a foxhole, i.e. under fire, so let's leave that judgement to those who have been there. I've known men who have been (my grandfather in WW2, my father in Vietnam.) I could ask them. I doubt they'd want to talk about it, since they've been quite reticent about it before. OK? I'm not trying to break anyone from their faith.
Nor do I think that most Christians use the Bible to promulgate their personal political principles. However, some do, and they make Christianity seem rather ugly and inflexible by doing so. I thought that the site referenced above was trying to do so. I have respect for your faith, and I wish that I could share it. I know that true Christianity isn't like that at all and I honestly do respect true Christians. I wish, as do we all, that I had the wisdom of Solomon. I don't. Sorry, guys.
To conclude, I'm sorry if I insulted your religion; I was merely trying to call attention to those who would use it for their own political purposes.
P.S.: (Personally, while in the past I have not professed any faith, I find myself trying to learn more about Nordic paganism and its mythology. I would be interested in corresponding with anyone who knows anything about this. HOWEVER, don't contact me if you're a racist; I am not and I don't like those who are.)
Be Kind,
Cyo.
"I'll preserve one last male thing in the museum of this world, if I can." -- D.H. Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The over-feminization of the military has been seen as an issue degrading military readiness. From everything I've heard from ex-military men with Desert Storm experience, this seems to be correct.
I have a lot of trouble placing our national security in the hands of an inherently inferior force. Women DO have a place in the military, many places, in fact. But not as combat troops and not as officers commanding combat troops. The reality of war is that it is not a video game. Ultimately, controlling a piece of real estate requires a person on the ground with the appropriate weapon. The best man for this job is now, as it always has been, a man.
I applaud this position. And I say that if this leads to a glass ceiling, then so be it. Although I think there are very few places where discrimination ought to be tolerated, national security is a higher need, and it ought to be one of them.
Also, Elaine Donnelly is one of the most vocal opponents of the Operation Tailhook scandal, where a female Navy pilot filed charges of rape, leading to the demise of several qualified Navy officers, then dropped her charges because they could not be substantiated (in fact, it seems clear that the rape never took place). So, while in the purest sense, it seems that this group wants men to remain at the front of the battlefield, it would appear that this is out of her/their recognition of men and their unique qualities, not out of self-preservation.
Until the nature of war changes, or until it can be demonstrated that women consistently do as well as (or possibly better than) men in ALL of the skills required for war-fighting, then this must one-sided burden must remain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 03, @12:52PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Frank, if you think we are an "inherently inferior race" you obviously haven't heard of the many women who've survived unspeakable violence and humiliation (having the crap beaten out of them repeatedly, sometimes in front of their children, being raped, urinated on etc) at the hands of their partners, while caring for children.
I think men are the ones who could learn a few survival skills.
My mother survived all of the above and thankfully she has 5 daughters who remember well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly, you owe Frank an apology. He never said "inherently inferior race". He said "inherently inferior FORCE". You deliberately misquoted him, and as such owe him a public apology.
Secondly, I agree with you about women and survival. The very same goes for men. I'm sure you'd agree that men have also developed some useful survival skills over the years, having the crap beaten our of them repeatedly, sometimes in front of their children, by their partners. You DO want to do something about domestic violence against men, don't you? (I'm not talking about the "5% Myth" of battered men, either.)
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I never used, nor would I ever use or even think "inherehtly inferior race." 1) I do not regard women as inferior and 2) women do not make up a race unto themselves. Second, survival is not the same as victory, and victory is fundamentally required for the survival of a NATION, as opposed to an individual. I have all the compassion in the world for people who have been abused, women as well as men. But to knowingly send a fundamentally inferior force into battle is morally unconscionable as well as being stupid. There are things that women are better at than men. War-fighting is not one of them.
Do I smell a cowardly troll? One who doesn't have the courage to come out and debate openly, but instead hides behind anonymity?
Thanks for stepping in, nagnip :-)
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I believe Frank h. meant was simply that if we lower the standards of our defense forces it will become inherently inferior. He was not saying that women were inherently inferior.
Women are not inherently inferior in any specific function.
However, until you see 190+ pound killer female types on the covers of Vouge, and other female beauty magazines, I would suspect that most women will decline with thanks the opportunity to become easy prey for the enemy.
Oh or did you mean, by chance, that women should get all the easy and safe combat roles?
"Hey sargee sweetie I can't go out on ambush tonight I'm on my period. Now c'mon honey you wouldn't want me leaving blood trails all over the place now would you? And when I get cramps, I have a tendancy to cry and moan."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To conclude, I'm sorry if I insulted your religion; I was merely trying to call attention to those who would use it for their own political purposes.
No apology necessary.
You may find some useful information at YAHOO Search Results Your search: "Nordic paganism".
so let's leave that judgment to those who have been there
No judgment was intended. It was a challenge, sure, but a small-potatoes challenge in light our concerns here. I think I was responding to what I heard as disappointment in your post. In-as-much-as we share opinions with may disparate groups who are offended, deeply in some cases, by the use of feminism to create a privileged class in a supposedly free and equal society, and the wholesale government sponsored attack on the nuclear family, we must expect to see ourselves inadvertently aligned with groups that in some cases express other views or beliefs that bear no relationship to ours or those we may even find repugnant.
Take me for example. I am sure that my sarcastic irreverent reactionary volatile and angry scribbling may worry some and keep others from associating with me outside of this web-site, and worry others about their reputations being affected by consorting in print with me.
I understand that; I don't take it personally. I let my feelings drive the content. We are dealing with what people believe, and this will always be a source of provocation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would also hate to see honest discourse about this issue taken over by the conservative Christian right. We non-believers are just as patriotic as they are...perhaps even more so, since it's only in Western civilisation that one can choose not to follow a religion.
Religious freedom, including the freedom to choose not to follow a religion, is a great freedom that every person deserves. I'm not sure that it's found only in Western civilisation, but it is one admirable aspect of Western civilisation right now.
On women in the military, or more generally the social, political, and legal statuses of males and females: these are issues that everyone should think about and discuss. So your participation here and elsewhere shows a good response to your concern about the conservative Christian right. But I see much greater evidence of discourse taken over (actually, wiped out) by anti-male feminists. I hope you will contribute to preventing this, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 02, @11:22PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
" This could be seen as either a step forward for those of us who are tired of PC decisions damaging our armed forces' strength, or also as a step backward for those of us who more strongly feel that women's rights must come with equal responsibilities. "
That's handy. So you get to whinge either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's handy. So you get to whinge either way.
I can't find the word whinge anywhere in my dictionary. How does one whinge, I wonder?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
