|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This woman is the one who is stupid and evil.
I noticed that this misandric rant of an article violates most of the tenets of men's advocacy. See how many you can pick out. I don't know where to begin myself.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose Private Lynndie England to Brigadier General Karpinski in Iraq, and, the Black Widows responsible for over 350 dead (mostly children) in Baslan, are somehow female exceptions ? ? ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, haven't you been listening? Women are inherently good, men are inherently evil.
Try to keep up. [/sarcasm]
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I see endless streams of literature and handouts recruiting people to take part in a walk for breast cancer, and none at all for research into prostate or testicular cancer, I find it hard to buy into her arguement that men have it so much better in the medical research field. When I see bothers or friends suffering from these conditions and are given either the choice of virtual emmasculation or death, I shed still fewer tears. When I look back at some of the Vietnam vets I have known, and all of them were left by their significant others and children because their experiences drove them mad, I am looking into the eyes of a fellow human being, deserted and abandoned to the whims of chance by these very same "nurturers" who have the ability to step into another's shoes and feel their pain.
In every time of war, there exists many situations where children are orphaned and similarly abandoned. If having children are the principal concern, where is the compassion for these innocent victims?
War is not fun-time for men. It isn't a game. It isn't about strength and machismo. It's about fighting for what is right, and defending the lives of all our brothers and sisters...most times, that's what it's about, anyway.
Bottom line: you want freedom to choose? You want to be at liberty to promulgate more life? You want to raise your progeny in a land that will recognize you and them as individuals who make choices for themselves? Thank a vet. And, be ready and willing to pay for these rights. Step up to the plate, lady...you owe this country much, and this time you cannot get someone else to pay the bill for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bacteria gives birth too honey. How about we make ring-worms in your intestinal tract a protected class too, because they give birth? How about making male sea horses a protected class in society because they too give birth?
Birth is NOT miraculous princess. Even the most lowly speices of bacteria gives birth. It's only "special" when humans give birth because we humans have a VERY BLOATED EGO!!! We humans contribute more to wars and destruction, than we do preserving life, or curing diseases.
If anything, we should celebrate the birth of single-cell-organisms because when is the last time a single cell organism became a dictator, ravaged a continent with constant war, invented the atomic bomb, and oppressed a group of people?
But even if females didn't give, females like this dumb-shit of a princess will still say that women shouldn't be drafted because she's a spoiled little bitch. The kind of girl I used to throw dodge balls at during gym class :-)
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:51 PM October 20th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I actually got a couple paragraphs into it before I realized she wasn't being sarcastic. She sounds like a parody of a woman scrambling to come up with "logic" for why it isn't morally right for her to do something she doesn't want to do.
Eventually I realized she wasn't joking... I wouldn't even worry about this one - a poorly-written rant from a poorly-educated person.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:12 PM October 20th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
That was my impression too, poorly educated and not too bright, not worth wasting our time on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:05 PM October 20th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
The article is a classical nauseating piece of feminist flip-floppery. However, I wouldn't say the author is "poorly educated and not too bright". On the contrary, I feel she is cynical, clever and well educated in the doctrines of feminaziism.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:34 PM October 20th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
gentlemen:
I think I have run across this young lady on another site. Personally I believe she is just a kid maybe 13 to 17 years old. She is probably scared out of her mind over the prospect of being drafted (which I do not believe will ever happen to women) so don't be too quick to call her a pea brain and uneducated. I may be totally wrong but I do not think so. I have also made myself unpopular on a female forum dealing with the draft by stating I think women should be fully included in the draft and then I added another post stating they should not be allowed to vote until they are required to perform military service as men may be. Only did one call me a silly and stupid man. One even complemented by saying I had a lot of guts to post such things on a female forum so don't doubt my loyalties. As I said this is probably just a kid we are dealing with.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may well be right, Pete. I contend, however, that a sharp learning curve is dead ahead for her, and she hasn't the traction to get through it. I know that most 13-17 year olds know it all or think that they do. Most of the time, their adolescent rants can be ignored or forgiven. But sometimes the most valuable lesson that can be taught is that disengaging the mouth before engaging the brain will quite often lead to a lot of backlash in the form of angry response. True, if this "author" is genuinely adolescent, she's probably laughing her butt off at the responses her article is going to generate, and her words are no more than a meaningless prank. But perhaps the deeper issue here is someone at that website thought her words to be salient enough to warrant publication. In this case, the responses go out to the website owner/publisher, and that perhaps they should be a bit more careful about whom they tacitly endorse. Their cause is certainly not helped any by misandrist diatribe, and the author of that diatribe must think a bit clearer before posting her words. Perhaps she will earn a skill that will carry her through life as a more informed opinionator. To my thinking, that can only be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article made me angry of course... it's misandric, illogical, and just plain annoying. This kind of "equality except when it doesn't suit me" person deserves a rifle and a front line. However, reading it a little made me laugh out loud at points... it's just so ridiculous. Anyone trying to quote this seriously for an argument would have a field day trying to edit it into comprehension.
"Women should not be drafted because they have babies!!!"
Hahaha, excellent opening argument.
lolz but thaay hav BABEES!!!! grawl lol kthxby
"Women are so susceptible to rape because men are stupid and even evil!"
I dunno, you'd think that people so stupid couldn't rape anyone...
"so it doesn't matter if the war made him crazy… as long as it didn't make him too crazy"
Yes, there are three ranges of crazy. Hitler, Feminist, lunatic, and just a WEE bit crazy.
"Second, female reproductive organs are much more complicated than men's are therefore effects of chemical war far could be much more consequential for a woman"
As John Stewart would say, "a striking argument... or, it WOULD be... had the author backed up or supported the argument before moving to the next point." But of course it's all hogwash, unless there is a chemical that attacks reproductive organs. And how exactly is it 'more complicated'? As much as I remember from basic biology, you have half a dozen tubes and a few sacs. Wootorz.
"Also, if every man and woman between 18-26 could be drafted what would happen when both of a married couple with children were drafted?"
Ah... they could ask for a pardon from the service due to extenuating circumstances, like people with bad eyesight or single parents? The military is ran by men, remember... they're not so stupid as to JUST have thought of that.
"You men can wave at a passing car without the driver thinking you are a hooker."
...why are you waving at strangers in cars?
"You men automatically get respect on the phone for customer service."
......WHAT? This sounds like a personal story...
" you completely lack empathy… the ability to understand someone else's feelings, thoughts, and experiences, basically putting yourself in someone else's shoes."
Ah, but your statement (a series of words put forward to make a definite declaration) doesn't consider (to think, regard, take into account) that nobody can truly (truthfully, accurately) comprehend (to understand, or see the extent of) anyone else's emotions, since (inasmuch, because) we all are limited to the extent of our own minds (if feminist, see "miniscule").
"By the way this is coming from a woman who doesn't even qualify to enlist due to health problems."
Would those be of a... mental nature?
"You men have advancements in medical science that greatly surpass those in women's health"
And on that note, I'm off with my LASER VISION and SUPER LEGS and NANOTECH ARMS to go to the mall. [BOING!]
Manly-Man AWAY!
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These little tidbits pointed to me a lack of knowledge, idiocy, or a lack of empathy:
A man however, isn't very involved in the emotional well being of his children so it doesn't matter if the war made him crazy...
Gee, a man getting PTSD is ... just tough. Months on end of seeing death, starvation, and deprivation are perfectly "ok", but only if men endure them. If a woman is raped, well then, that few hours means a lifetime ... (got it!)
Women are so susceptible to rape because men are stupid and even evil!
--Fact: few women are raped. It's wrong, period, but let's TRY to have a rational discussion shall we.
--Fact: According to "rape advocates" the men who rape do so DOZENS of times. Why do I mention this? Well this annoying logical and math oriented brain of mine extrapolates that IF the rape advocates have FOR ONCE gotten it right, then that means WHATEVER # of women are raped then it follows that very few men are the perpetrators of the crime.
Also, if every man and woman between 18-26 could be drafted what would happen when both of a married couple with children were drafted?
1) The Army has a Family Care plan. All soliders are REQUIRED to have one. This way single moms (notice she doesn't advocate that single moms be disallowed from joining) have someone to take care of their kids. Also, join married couples have the same requirement. Due to DACOWITZ and feminist influence, women who fail to do this are sometimes (far to often) exempted from going to a war zone. How freaking convenient. Get the paycheck, but not the responsibilities.
2) Raising your right hand and joining is a choice. Made freely and w/out duress. HAVING a child is a choice, for women. And tying that together: you didn't join the "Girl Scouts" ... you joined the military.
I mean any man that is crying "Equal rights, they should be drafted" hasn't got a clue how freakin' unfair America is for woman. You men can walk down the street without fear of being mugged, raped, and murdered.
Sorry sweetcheeks, but men DO run the risk of being robbed, mugged, "jacked", or just plain murdered. Oh, and men are most likely to be raped in prison, with nary a peep from such enlightened writers as "Sarah Eve Nichols
" (article writer) giving a damn. Who is MOST likely to get raped? Men accused (innocent or not) of sex crimes. Where's Sarah's compassion in those cases?
You men have advancements in medical science that greatly surpass those in women's health.
Is this chick delusional?
And this LAST gem just cracks me up at the duplicitousness:
You men have it freakin' easy but because you are men you haven't got a clue how hard it is for us women because you completely lack empathy… the ability to understand someone else's feelings, thoughts, and experiences, basically putting yourself in someone else's shoes. I figured I needed to explain that for you men since you don't know what empathy even is.
Gee, after what she wrote I know one thing Sarah's got that men have: Balls the size of basketballs or a brain the size of a pea.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM October 20th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like equality is only good as far as it gives her what she wants without giving anything in return. Don't forget, feminists want everyone to be equal, just some more then others.
At the bottom of the 'article' it says they want comments, so give it to them at
editor@technologyinnovator.com ;).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:15 PM October 20th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Man, I am fed up with people like this woman.
FINE, I say we just up and DRAFT their a$$es.
Then of course we will have to put up with the endless whineing as to why even though it is EQUALITY it is UN-FAIR to women!
My head hurts...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch out, the new term coming around is "equity."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:58 AM October 21st, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, and another favorite is "dealing with social realities". Also "equal but different".
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also "equal but different".
Sounds an awful lot like "separate but equal", doesn't it? Where have we heard that one before?
Of course, feminists don't really object to separate but equal, when it suits their fancy. They certainly don't object to excluding men from DV shelters. Can't have men using the very facilities their taxdollars paid for, can we?
I say draft 'em. Put their delicate asses on the front lines. "I am woman, hear me roar" and all that. Well, Sarah Eve Nichols, let's hear you roar.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:56 PM October 21st, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Some women might suprise you guys in combat.
I'm not saying that women are better than men as a whole in this case, but there are exeptions to the rules.
I think that any woman who CAN fight SHOULD fight, and any man who CAN'T fight shouldn't.
So if they want to draft women, I say go ahead. But we shouldn't be suprised to find fewer women accepted into the military than men.
Phaedra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:51 AM October 22nd, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, please surprise me, I like the idea of a female only battalion. Lets see this women can do anything a man can do only better on the front lines. And we would only have to pay them 76 cents to the dollar, :).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sarah Eve Nichols does sound like a little girl, who is terrified that equal rights and equal opportunity might end up requiring equal responsibility and equal social duty. I've heard this sort of nonsense from many, many women. Even those, who don't fall back on the "women are wonderful nurturers, men are evil," come out with stuff like, "I couldn't imagine having to fight in a war. I wasn't raised that way." My response is something along the lines of "You're no more or less capable than I am of suffering horribly and dying."
Stopthedraft.com has a couple of related articles. This one, by David W. Behrens, points out the fact that the all-male draft is discrimination against males. This one, by Ellen Goodman, tries to make an additional claim that the all-male draft is also discrimination against women. Also note the way Goodman writes, "She (the 17-year-old female who co-filed suit) wasn't asked to sign up because of old ideas about men going off to war and women staying home waiting for letters." Men aren't asked to sign up; they're ordered to sign up.
If there's another draft for combat, women should be forced to kill, suffer, and die in numbers commensurate with their percentage of the draft-age population. If that doesn't prove to be the case, it should be clear to every fair-minded person that the federal government has declared war against all American males.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:46 PM October 20th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's mine:
I am writing in regards to the article "Women & the Draft" by Sarah Eva Nichols. I agree that women should not be drafted because of the mere differences of physical strength in men and women, but I could practically reconsider based on Sarah's inane, childish, laughably simple-minded article.
I would never want to serve and protect someone who calls me "evil" the way Sarah did in regards to all men being potential rapists of female soldiers, for crying out loud. Say what you want about male sexual aggression, but to call us "evil" in the context of an article where you are basically selling your own ass as the golden well from which all life springs eternal?
Get this cowardly bitch fired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other than "Jus Prima Nocta" (the right of a "nobleman"to fuck your bride on your wedding night if you happen to be a peasant and which was not repealed in Canon Law until the turn of the late 1700's when the Committee of Public Safety, the guys in charge of the guillotine in France, sent the severed heads of several noblemen convicted of having exercised it to the Pope in order to make a point), no other measure in the law in all of history has been as resented as the conscription of peasants to fight the quarrels of aristocrats. Those subject to such measure have always ranted complained and whined about it. You've come a long way baby!!!!hehehehe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is my letter. It's long, but I quoted Sarah a lot. I would, as always, welcome feedback
----Steven
Dear Editor,
I am writing to you out of concern for a childish, sexist, and misinformative article written by Sarah Eve Nichols called "Women are Mothers, Not Soldiers".
I was troubled by so many aspects of Sarah's article that I feel I should specifically list them out to defend my claim that she wrote out of ignorance, was blatantly sexist, and while calling for understanding for women, skirted the issues of responsibility.
I will use quotes:
First, they could be too emotionally scarred to raise children. A man however, isn't very involved in the emotional well being of his children so it doesn't matter if the war made him crazy… as long as it didn't make him too crazy.
Men who are fathers care about their children. Just because Sarah can't or won't see it doesn't make it so. And she implies that the horrors of war are perfectly suitable for the psyche of men, while women should be spared. But, only if women want to be spared. Men don't get a choice according to Sarah.
Second, female reproductive organs are much more complicated than men's are therefore effects of chemical war far could be much more consequential for a woman.
Is Sarah a doctor? Has she studied the effects of chemical weapons? Does she hold a degree in biochemistry, bio-toxins, or have one clue about the effects of chemical weapons. Does she even know what a blood agent does, how a non-persistent nerve agent effects the body, or what blister agent can do? Has she seen the pictures of the Kurds in N. Iraq, or talk to even one of them? Ask Sarah what the long term effects of Gb agents are on male reproductive agents. But first ask her what a Gb agent is.
Sarah makes broad statements that seem to imply that women and their bodies are sacred and that men's are disposable. I can extrapolate that because she sees the very real possibility of chemical weapons being used, sees that as horrifying if applied to women, and as a non-issue if men are the victims of it. That's not a feminist advocate, that's a female-supremacist advocate with shades of eugenic theories applying to men.
Third, what about rape in the army? Women are so susceptible to rape because men are stupid and even evil!
This one is blatant misandry. Rape per capita in the military is LOWER than in the civilian world. If Sarah would do some research instead of happily be spoon-fed propaganda she might know that. Also, the bigoted and hateful comments that men, implying ALL men, are stupid and evil, smacks of comments made by KKK'ers or Ethnic Cleansers you might meet.
According to rape advocates that I have heard, men who DO rape, rape repeatedly. Dozens, if not tens of dozens of times. Simple math will then show you that most rapes are committed by a very few sick men, and that by definition those men are not the norm. That means, if Sarah could do some simple math, that very very few men are rapists. Oh, does Sarah concern herself about men who are P.O.W.s (not to mention U.S. prison rape) who are sodomized? Does Sarah even care?
if every man and woman between 18-26 could be drafted what would happen when both of a married couple with children were drafted? You people forget that there are still plenty of young people out there getting married and having children. I bet you are thinking "The grandparents would take in the children." Not everyone has that possibility.
Sarah shows her ignorance of the military, the draft, and a complete lack of research .... again.
The draft, if there is one, is done by lottery. Few are chosen. Therefore her first premise is fallacious. Second, many SINGLE women join the military. They are required to have a "Family Care Plan", and if one cannot be worked out, they are given several options. Jointly married military couples have the same requirements and options. Funny how Sarah never even thought of, nor mentioned single military fathers. They not only exist, but in an organization that is comprised of more then 80% male members there are quite a few single dads in the military. Did Sarah not care about them, dismiss them because she dismisses men as parents, or because her "female first" ideology gave her blinders?
Also, currently the military is ALL VOLUNTEER. How is this relevant? It occurs to one who is interested in equality (and not to Sarah .... ) that women are already given great accommodation as to life choices. But what Sarah, deliberately or due to her female-supremacist blinders, did not explore was this: what about women who have volunteered and who are in now? What about the F-14 pilots, the medics, respiratory therapists, crew chiefs, and the plethora of other women already in? Should they be removed? I mean, is Sarah advocating that men ONLY should be susceptible to the draft, but women should be given a choice? How convenient that would be: the rights w/out the responsibilities. Equality is an ALL TIME/ 24 hours a day state of mind and concept. It is not a concept of convenience nor an entitlement/privilege to be taken when it garners a want, but to be pushed aside when the bill comes due. If women are men's equals, and many women have labored and sacrificed to make it so, then women take the mixed blessing of equality. Either women can be in the military and get the "posh" jobs of flying jets (very physically straining, where was Sarah decrying that if it hurt women?) then they get the grunt jobs of filling sand bags. And if the draft comes, they are to get in line, go to the front line, and serve like the equals they are.
Sarah has a lot of growing up to do and needs to learn before she spouts off about subjects she knows nothing about. Her "feelings" need to be based on actual facts, and not poorly thought out, one sided "I want this when it's good, but don't want it when it costs" wants. Freedom isn't free, and a lot of women already paid for Sarah's freedom. Maybe she should ask military women if they want her to limit their choices. And if she ever gets around to asking men how they feel about being 2nd class citizens in people like Sarah's eyes.
Sarah then goes on to warmly talk about how women are "empathetic" and men are not. Surely she needs to look in the mirror and realize had she replaced men with the words Jew, Negro, or [any-other-class-of-person] she would clearly see her duplicitous sexism and complete lack of empathy. She has a delusional self-image if she thinks her statements reflect empathy while advocating for men to be put into situations where they could be chemically maimed, calls men in general rapists, cares not what war does to men's psyche, and never even thinks of single military men as fathers. Her mask came off, and it wasn't pretty.
L. Steven Beene II
Alaska
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:03 PM October 20th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Nice letter. But Sarah is so brainless and anti-male that she's just not worth writing to. I hope you sent the letter to others at well, like sponsors of the site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did, I want to see it with the rest of the responses. We'll see.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:10 PM October 20th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I remember an article from Anna Quindlin (who used to be a big woman on top at the NYT) arguing that selective service registration required only of men...discriminated against women. It was filled with the usual inanities and contempt for men. And somehow I suspect she ISN'T DOING ANYTHING to change this "discrimination against women." Instead, now she's making money peddling vagina monologue-type fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Website she writes for is looking for writers via the link on the right:
editor@guerrillapress.com
Mizz Nichols' piece could be put together by a twelve year old...both the grammar and the content. If she is thirteen or older...help her...or someone put her out of her misery, please.
Then again, that's what this government is doing and has been doing...helping her. Women like her take jobs away from deserving men through affirmative action and quotas everyday.
Jeff / This is not Equality
"All human laws which contradict God's laws, we are bound in conscience to disobey." George Mason
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:44 AM October 21st, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
This could very well be the stupidest woman on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:52 AM October 21st, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Male-only selective service registration encourages degrading stereotypes of men. This article is great evidence of that.
It's way past time that males' full humanity be recognized -- as fathers, friends, lovers, and warriors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:30 PM October 21st, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Women dont belong in the army, they also dont belong in the police force or the fire department.
There are a great many thing our gender has been designed to accommplish and a great many things the female gender has been designed to accomplish. The two are not the same.
Part of the insanity we live with is the inability to say that openly. The truth has been virtually outlawed by female politics.
Denying that part of her argument only serves to aid the power of feminism by agreeing with the very lie there power is based on.
Women shouldnt be drafted, they shouldnt be flying combat airplanes or even carry a rifle.
But if they want to play a role in the military let them, as theres always lots of laundry to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:00 PM October 21st, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
That's not completely fair.
Like I said earlier, SOME women can do what men do. Not too many but SOME.
Those women should be given the same chance as any man.
Phaedra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:43 PM October 21st, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"That's not completely fair.
Like I said earlier, SOME women can do what men do. Not too many but SOME.
Those women should be given the same chance as any man."
Sounds on the face of it like a reasonable argument. But lets not forget, thats the very sort of male response that got us in this mess in the first place.
You see to the female mind truth and reason dont actually mean the same thing. Its only truth and reason if it gets her what she wants, or to be more specific if it gets her what shes been told she wants.
The military, the police force, as well as the fire departments, with the blessing of society as a whole, did in fact take the very approach you argue for. But they quickly found that women could not meet the requirments. Because the requirments were designed to find the best people for the job.
And to the female mind this was unfair because men could meet the standards and women could not. And since she had recently been told that there is no differance between men and women, she went forward with all the indignace she could muster and fought to have those requirments lowered, so she could meet them as well. And to the female mind this is logic because to be "given the same chance as any man" to her means, shes gets what shes been told she wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:28 PM October 21st, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay.
I can go along with that.
Phaedra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women dont belong in the army
While I'll agree that physical requirements for combat positions should not be lowered for women and that this will mean that most combat positions are filled by men, the Army is a great deal more than just front-line infantry.
Women can drive trucks, women can push paperwork, women can maintain machinery, women can push buttons that launch missiles. There is no shortage of work for women to do in the military. How much hand-to-hand combat does the Navy or the Air Force do, anyway?
It is not equality and it is not fair to take years out of young mens lives in mandatory military service and not demand the same from women. We are all citizens, we all have the same rights, we should have the same responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll agree that physical requirements for combat positions should not be lowered for women and that this will mean that most combat positions are filled by men
I'm glad you wrote "most combat positions," though my take on it is that some combat positions would have to be filled by men.
In Vietnam, especially around Saigon, there was an extensive system of tunnels used by the Vietcong. The entrances were narrow, making it difficult for Americans to enter them, but not for the generally smaller Vietnamese. In many cases, when these tunnels were discovered by Americans, it was necessary to send a relatively small man into them to look for troops as well as information. Since women are generally smaller than men, they would have in many cases been better for this job.
Also, women might be especially useful for rapid, lightweight strikes against an enemy, since they weigh less than men on average and they need less weight in some supplies such as food. I think that if the military made an honest decision to deploy women in combat, they would come up with many useful ways to do so.
People should realize that American women would be ineffective in battle because of size to the same extent that the Vietnamese were ineffective in battle because of size. And let's not forget who won that war.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:39 PM October 22nd, 2004 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Its not an issue of size Tom its an issue of gender. Being a women regardless of your size is what discredits her for combat.
We all know what the real differances between the sexes are because we have all lived our lives in the company of one another. We have wrestled around, played games, watched conflicts arise and watched as both genders dealt with these conflicts in very differant ways. And most importantly we have seen and tested one anothers abilities. Women do not have the physical or mental ability to enter combat effectively.
They are a differant kind of human being. Designed to fulfill differant roles than men, and bulling society for the last 40 years in an attempt to get us all to deny that reality will have an affect on how honest we can be, but it will have absolutely no effect on the truth.
This reminds me of the press thats given to Layla Ali. They say her name and call her a boxer as though using that phrase is enough to carry real meaning. Buy anyone who has actually seen her or any other female fight in a ring knows, these are akward, ungainly, imprecise and powerless displays that have nothing what so ever in common with real boxing. And its because they just dont belong there. Combat will be no differant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:44 AM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
We have been having a discussion already Tom, handle or not. And i would be happy to continue. The only problem so far is that your fairly vague in your pronouncements. What exactly is it that im wrong about Tom?
Me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:35 PM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boy, Oh Boy; Just more proof that feminists take pride in their own ignorance.
The Sarah Eve Nichols article--if you can call it that--is just one more example of the childishness, hatred and ignorance that seems to pretty much characterize the movement as I see it.
The sad thing about it all is that idiotic, poorly written, poorly researched smut like this could be handed in to any sociology professor and recieve an "A" grade. If she went on any TV show in the country with this idiocy, she would get applause. When did America lose its way? When will we ever gain a true vision of equality in this country?
I'm no military buff, but I'm pretty sure that rape is against the law and that those who commit the crime are severely punished (only if you're a man, though)
~
I just think the state of our American Culture is a pathetic disgrace.
We have seen an amoral child molester given the star treatment. We've seen groups of women protest against private all-male organizations just to play golf. We've seen college professors call for the elimination of the entire male gender. We've seen women going to the polls to vote for candidates just because they are women. We see on our TV sets everyday the "girl smart boy dumb" routine. We see in our schools that boys are behind in learning. We see bias on the part of female professors -- and we all just turn a blind eye to it because to do something about it would be sexist and/or racist. If human society as a whole is to endure, all of this needs to stop!
If self-described feminists radicals like Ms. Nichols really wanted equality on this planet, such idiotic lies like this would not be necessary. I would much rather see feminists fight for a true vision of equality than for their own benefit. Here we are in a war right now, and we have to hear a would-be feminist denegrate the military men that defend to the death her right to free speech.
I read a post saying that this girl needed help, well if you ask me, this girl is beyond helping.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
