|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, since feminism, it seems, is more about female superiority than it is about equality these days, it only stands to reason...I guess they're better soldiers in battle. And, as such, I have absolutely no sympathy for them. Men have been fighting and dying in battle since the dawn of time, with women in the rear "pulling the strings." Now we even have women in positions of command. Isn't it ironic? Isn't it a shame?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And you know that company of reservists that refused an order to drive fuel trucks in Iraq? Well, guess what? The commander of the unit was female. In fact she was relieved of command, but only at her own request. Read it here.
Also, the Pentagon refused to release her name, unlike a male commander who was recently relieved of command.
Maybe we should just pass a constitutional ammendment that requires women to be held to a lower standard as a right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As long as women aren't eligible for the draft, I object to any grant of power to them. In fact, they have it better than us already. Special uniforms, looser hair codes, etc. If they want equality, they should take the bad with the good. I'm not talking just the big things like being drafted, but the little things too. There shouldn't be any extra benefits for them in the military. Of all places, we can't afford to have the whining in there. It makes us look weak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:25 AM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I was just clicking on MANN to submit this very story, and here it is posted.
I recall seeing, many times on a major feminist website, statements advocating that more troops be sent to Afghanistan (outlying areas) so that women's rights could be more assured. Hypocritically, I have never seen them advocating a larger role for women in combat. In other words they want American servicemen to take responsibility for ensuring privileges for Afghan women to enjoy. We already have to do that for privileged American women routinely so I guess they think it’s no big deal to have a few more disposable men disposed of in combat in Afghanistan so women can have rights without responsibilities.
Hypocritically, yet again, we never see anything in the way of recognition of male victims of domestic violence on any radical/gender feminist web sites. Why blame only men for violence, then send so many men to combat? Is war just a radical/gender area where they turn their head to violence against men, while privileged women are excused of the responsibility that government places on men? Where is Title IX when it comes to defending America in combat? Why must only men register with selective service? Why does the U.S. government have signs in every post office that "A MANS GOTTA DO WHAT A MANS GOTTA DO?" Isn't that discriminating on the basis of sex? WHY DOESN’T A WOMAN GOTTA DO WHAT A MAN’S GOTTA DO? ...and while we’re on the subject of that sexist sign, why does the U.S. government feel it has to speak patronizely to men in broken English? I guess only when they want to murder men in war are they willing to admit how badly our schools are failing boys while favoring females, hence the need for English at the shortchanged level boys and men have been educated to understand.
Maybe if women truly start to take responsibility for the freedoms and privileges they have been getting on the backs of men for all these centuries privileged, gender/feminist, sexist bigots will have less time to spend vilifying men in women's studies programs, women's commissions, women's caucuses, domestic violence councils, etc., etc., etc.
The time is long overdue for privileged, pampered females to lock and load, fix bayonets, enter the trenches, and just let men sit at home and be out of danger from war for a change. I'm sure all those bad enemy combatants will surrender in no time when we unleash the vilifying mouths of "America's most abusive" on them. Besides don’t radical/gender feminists teach us that they can do anything better than a man. Pony up femi (radical/gender feminist bigot), and show the world your mouth is not the biggest part of your ideology.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:37 AM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"The time is long overdue for privileged, pampered females to lock and load, fix bayonets, enter the trenches, and just let men sit at home and be out of danger from war for a change."
Historically men have been 99.99% of combat deaths and casualties. Carry Roberts (begining in the 4th paragraph) points out that men are still over 97% of combat deaths in the current war in Iraq here . He asks, "That's equality of the sexes?"
Hey all you radical/gender feminists out there like Barbara Boxer, LEVEL THIS PLAYING FIELD!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:46 AM October 25th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
You know Ray, if you checked your history, you would see that during WWII women moved into factories to help with the war effort, and continued to do the same in both Vietnam and Korea.Women's group continue to fight for equality in the military, they also continue to question the governments motives when entering these foreign nations since very little is done while the troops have occupied. I have overseen many Feminist programs and never walk away
thinking that we work against men but try to enlighten them and work with us.
there are alot of us out there working for equality and many more who aren't afraid to join the military, for the right cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:02 AM October 26th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"You know Ray, if you checked your history, you would see that during WWII women moved into factories to help with the war effort, and continued to do the same in both Vietnam and Korea."
Dear Rosie the Rivetor:
So what? I'm fully aware of that. There is no comparison between the nice safe confines of the factories back home in America and the meat grinder of the front lines of combat. I was clearly saying that women need to stop being pampered with such privileged status and sent to the front lines of combat equally with men. In fact I've been clearly saying, if it were up to me, I'd send all women to fight in combat until as many women have died in combat for this country as have men. Let men stay at home and be "Ralph the Rivetor."
"...they also continue to question the governments motives when entering these foreign nations since very little is done while the troops have occupied."
So when men are sent to combat you war protest and thereby inspire the enemy through liberal news coverage to kill more American men as happened in Vietnam. I remember a Marine who was drowning in his blood that came back to our medivac area after LBJ called a cease-fire in the bombing on the Ho Chi Minh trail in acquiescence to the war protesters in America (Dec. 67). The NVA really opened up on American positions when the American air cover came off. Thanks, traitor. I still see that Marines eyes in my dreams and in my woken state. Do you have nice memories of your protests enlightening men?
"I have overseen many Feminist programs and never walk away
thinking that we work against men but try to enlighten them and work with us."
Ray say, "she who seeks to enlighten men should first remove head from area of anatomy where sun don't shine." Have a nice day.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:03 AM October 26th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
who makes the laws that keep women from advancing in the military? Is it women refusing to enter? no thats not the case. But from your comments, I see you are too bitter to even think of having a decent discussion. Have a nice day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:37 PM October 26th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"who makes the laws that keep women from advancing in the military?"
Why all the citizens of the country. Who did you think makes them? I'd say their certainly isn't anyone today holding women back from combat service if feminists wanted to push for equality in that area, but they don't. They are too content with their privileged status requiring so little accountability and responsibility.
Come back when you want to talk about assuming all the responsibility and accountability that men have had to assume. I hope we were able to enlighten you in some small way.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:00 PM October 26th, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
"I see you are too bitter to even think of having a decent discussion."
Get used to it. Fundamental feminism is going to be hearing a lot, lot more of the same from the men it has has been abusing and battering with such cruel disregard for humane considerations.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:43 AM October 27th, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
ooooh ray,your scaring me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:12 PM October 27th, 2004 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
"ooooh ray,your scaring me."
That's so silly. What's really terrifying and horrible are the atrocities that have been committed against decent, innocent men by radical/gender feminist man-haters in the name of their ideology.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:10 PM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
If women can handle combat, and men can be trained not to give women soldiers special privileges, then I'm all for it.
But this is not just about what women can do. It's also about whether women's lives are considered "more valuable" than men's. It's about time everyone says, NO NO NO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The problem i have with all of this is that im one of those dastardly males that prefers truth to irrationality even when the irrationality is in the name of "equality".
Female politics has proven over the years that they much prefer irrationality over truth and reason, and women in combat roles is just one more example of that.
I have a hard time understanding how we benifit as men by supporting and applauding the very irrationalism that female politics is based on.
Women have no role to play in combat, they are incapable of functioning effectively as combat soldiers. And i have no interest in undermining western cultures ability to adress the threats against it simply to accomodate female delusion and ego, or a misguided male sense of "equality" as payback.
Gentlemen we need to stand in defense of reason and truth, and that means we cannot afford to adopt and use the very same ever flexible female defintions that are used against us. Equality as a word no longer carrys any meaning. Its merely a stick used by female politics to beat us into submission.So instead of using that word and the ridiculous defintions attached to it, to gain some sense of payback, we need to shred it and force it back down their throats.
This is not an issue of equality as payback. We are merely adding more irrationality to a flame we should'nt be feeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:13 PM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the issue is which equality - equality of standards or equality of results. Women have been playing the game of pick-and-choose when it comes to equality. When equality of results benefits them, they want affirmative action, but in cases such as military operations, they are perfectly happy to let people like Elaine Donnelly take over and keep women out of dangerous positions. My preference, like yours, is to use equality of standards, which would exclude nearly all females from combat, but would also eliminate "remedial" programs to coddle women and hold their hands as they are rewarded high-paying corporate positions and government seats they have not earned.
But either way, there should be no selective equality. Since we now have massive "gender normed" standards to help women into areas they are normally excluded from, such as flight training for B1 bombers and jet fighters, there should also be gender norming to allow women to perform the terrible grunt positions, like the infantry. If you oppose gender norming and affirmative action as I do, then you should renounce the feminists and male political suck-ups who support it, rather than the men here who are merely pointing out the hypocracy of it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:38 PM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Im not renouncing anyone, im trying to engage others in a discussion that i think has value. And so far its working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:46 PM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women have no role to play in combat, they are incapable of functioning effectively as combat soldiers."
Nonsense, neither do men! Men have historically been forced to be capable of functioning effectively as combat soldiers so let women also know that responsibility.
While I don't seriously doubt that women will (for the foreseeable future) be the ones who will have babies, I have no doubt that females can be socialized to be far more soldier-like than they are now.
You seem to be following some of the same reasoning as the author of "Women in the Military [flirting with disaster]." here
As one of the books reviewers points out, "Rudyard Kipling wrote, "when you're lying wounded on Afghanistan's plains; And the women come out to cut off what remains..." Brian Mitchell writes that American women are castrating the military. But any point of this book has been rendered moot since the bombing of the USS Cole. The excellent performance of the Cole's female officers and enlisted are a matter of public record. And female military personnel are needed for dealing with female suspects in Islamic gender-segregated societies. In the weeks following 9-11..."
I say put a gun in their (women's) hands, send them off to war and let them learn to fend for themselves as men have been required to do. If there is any question about their military preparedness, then factor that into their deployment, put them in situations where they will not needlessly endanger men, but above all make women accept responsibility for themselves, including defending their country. Any less on their part is just more of the same old "privilege without accountability" that women have been so used to getting away with for so long.
With all due respect I know that women in Iraq have been killed flying combat missions, and have been blown up working demolition as well as having been killed in other combat situations. Those women are true heroes, let the rest of the matriarchy learn to have respect for the true cost of freedom, let them also get up to speed at filling combat roles. Nobody wants to die in war so every citizen should equally have to bear that burden, or true equality will never be known.
As much as I would like to see women 100% fill the military needs of America until as many women have been killed in this nations wars as have been men, it is much more likely that I will have to settle for a more equitable (Title IX) like 50/50 contribution. So far women are not even close. Level this playing field, and can all the lame ass excuses!
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:01 PM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Women have been coming to the aid of injured men since the beggining of time. This has been the breakdown of gender responsibility in every battle ever fought. How does the performance of the women on the U.S.S Cole now suddenly qualify women for the male roles?
Men have not been forced to assume combat roles any more than the male of any species has been forced to assume these roles. The human male as with the males in most species enters into combat naturally, from a young age, and as a direct result of their gender, not as a result of socializing. The human female on the other hand rarely enters into any form of combat, regardless of age.
This does not however exclude women from violence, as even a child can pull a trigger. And since women have shown themselves to be childish and more than willing to lash out, we know them to be capable of that.
We seem to disagree fundamentally when it comes to the effect "socializing" can have on ones gender. So far the only effects of a society bent on convincing their women that they are in fact men has been delusion and ego.
And Ray, again your using the female defintion of "equality" as though it actually has value. A 50\50 distibution is not equality nor is it equitable. It is in fact the root of the very tryanny we are fighting in the mens movement.
A society that stands up and says to me "you must deny who and what you are" in order to placate the political demands of another has just robbed me.
A society that then gives my role to that other even though they are not as capable as i, has done far more than just rob me.
I dont know if any of you have noticed but the women guiding female politics want our roles. Every single one of them. Because they know evey time they gain yet another its yet another insult to us, as well as the clearest possible indication of their own power.
How much more powerfull can one get than to convince an entire society that its smallest, weakest, slowest, least aggressive are the ones that should fill the roles that actually require the biggest, strongest, fastest, and most agressive. And what a profound insult to those that have actually been designed by evolution to fill these roles, that they are now to be replaced by those least able.
And Ray i have absolutely no interest in anyones notion of "true equality" the only thing im working for is a world governed by reality. Where human beings can live their lives free from the constraints of "true equality".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:54 AM October 24th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"We seem to disagree fundamentally when it comes to the effect "socializing" can have on ones gender."
Actually, as someone who watches a lot of nature shows I understand the "common sense" approach you are presenting to gender. The one thing that separates us from all other forms of life is our brain and the ability to think and create in abstract ways that are far beyond the powers of any other species.
However, it is the radical/gender feminists, using "women's ways of knowing" (connected thinking as oppossed to separate thinking - logic) that seems to be setting the rules in many areas of society so that men are shortchanged and abused egregiously.
I am trying to use the radical/gender feminist double standard when it comes to combat. I say use the radical/gender feminist constructs and laws demanding equality in the area of national defense, and give American men a break. Let American women 100% take care of the national defense of America. I don't want men to even have to suffer 50% of the injuries and death in any present or future war. Men have already paid way too much for a country that only vilifies them and profiles them as violent for their service to their country in war. Let radical/gender feminists put their backs where their big mouths are and pony up for national defense. Tell the Title IX hypocrites to level this playing field!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:00 PM October 24th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that the irrational worst of the female mind, is now what governs most. But that is precisely why i disagree when it comes to us using that approach as well.
The real danger to society isnt "who" is using these female irrationalisms, the real danger is that those irrationalisms are being used at all.
The world is in real danger of slipping back into its nightmare past when it allows itself to be governed by a twisted morality built on lies.
We have seen this time and again throughout history and the solution in each case was never to adopt and act on the lies of the enemy but to meet their lies head on. This is what we need to do.
Female politics has managed to convince society to accept their defintions and viewpoints as moral absolutes. And what we need to do is tear everyone of those down. Erode their morality based on lies and they have nothing to stand on.
And when western culture villifies men for the very service we provide, we do not abandon this servive, this role, this responsibilty, since that is the very aim of female politics.
Women use their influence, their political power, their twisted morality to villify and tear us down, so that they may assume the very power that comes from that service to society. This is their very goal.
Women have gained this inbalance of power by retaining all of their traditional roles, and the influence that comes from them, as well as systematically assuming all of the male roles as well.
And i for one will not stand aside simply because words like "equality" have been used to camoflouge to true nature of this dangerous irrationality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:17 PM October 24th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly doubt that we will ever see a female draft.
Let us not forget, that the goal of feminism is NOT equality. In the end what feminism desires is that men be the slaves and women be the "masters". That is where we are heading, now.
In feminism men must serve the female, un-conditionaly, whith out dessent and without question. Since this is obviously the case, I beleive that in NO WAY will feminist LET there be a draft for women.
It is MEN who must die, not women.
A female draft would be out of the question, considering the feminist agenda and it's goals.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:15 PM October 24th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. It is not the government or the "people" who run this country anymore, it is the feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
No you are wrong, and that is not the goal of Feminism.True Feminism is equality, recognition for past, present accomplishments and equal opportunity in the future. You guys sound like you had a bad date last night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but we aren't talking about "true feminism".
We are talking about millitant gender feminism.
Not the same things...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:13 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I looked at the comments and didn't see the words " militant gender Feminism", maybe you should be specific when putting down all feminists as Ray and others have. And are you speaking for everyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:39 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Im talking about all feminists, in fact im talking about all feminism. Because all feminism is inherantly negative, and thats the only thing "true" about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some Anonymous User on 04-10-25 13:21 EDT wrote, "True Feminism is equality, recognition for past, present accomplishments and equal opportunity in the future."
Gawd. You actually sound like you *believe* that.
Please wake up and take off the women's studies-imposed social blinders.
I'll bet you also believe in the Big Lie of the so-called 'patriarchy' and thousands of years of women being 'oppressed victims' at the hands of evil domineering men.
Get a clue, sister. Open your eyes and take a look at the society that actually exists around you. Women now and through-out history have been protected, pampered, and pandered to at the cost of men's blood, sweat, tears, and very lives.
The last thing feminists want is actual equality. Equality means responsibility. What they do want is to see female privilege without responsibility and male responsibility without privilege cast into stone as law.
Remember that the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), which was introduced in the '70s and would have made equal opportunity and responsibility a matter of law, and under which such discrimination as 'affirmative action' would have been illegal, was soundly defeated by the feminists of the N.O.W.
Feminism had a great opportunity to prove it was an ideology based on equality at that moment, and found itself sorely lacking. Its record has not improved.
Feminism = sexism. It is greed, narcissism, hubris, and supremacy rolled into one ugly package. It is bigotry plain and simple, and harms decent women almost as much as men with its hateful creed.
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:05 AM October 26th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"maybe you should be specific when putting down all feminists as Ray and others have."
I've certainly been trying to make it clear in my posts that it is "radical/gender feminism," that I'm opposed to. I actually support IWF (Independent Women's Forum), and equity feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers, etc. I also very much like the writings of Wendy McElroy at Ifeminist.
Hoff Sommers got it right when she pointed out in one of her books that it is the gender feminists who stole feminism (the early version).
Still, the fact that American feminism has roots in communism leaves a lot of stay at home Moms very cold. It seems those women have no desire to abandon motherhood for the assembly line of the factory, or some other work. Yet many stay at home Moms would like to see a feminism that recognize the rights of women and men, men and women, equally.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:34 AM October 26th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Agreed. It is not the government or the "people" who run this country anymore, it is the feminists."
"No you are wrong, and that is not the goal of Feminism. True Feminism is equality, recognition for past, present accomplishments and equal opportunity in the future. You guys sound like you had a bad date last night."
Radical/gender feminism has largely taken over in many areas of American government and society with an iron fisted dictatorial abusiveness that oppresses heterosexual men, women, and children viciously.
Thousands of women's studies programs on college campuses spew the radical/gender feminists mantra. Hundreds of women's commissions in states across America legislate radical/gender feminist man hating into laws that target men for arrest, prosecution, and persecution.
The juggernaut of man hate at the hands of radical/gender feminists is so out of control it's mind boggling, and it was under the 8 years of the Clinton administration that it really went into the twilight zone. It was during the eight years of the Clinton administration that Fathers, men, women and children became fully aware that the jack boot heal of radical/gender feminism wanted to destroy their life.
Mensactivists, Equity Feminists (Independent Women's Forum), Ifeminists, Concerned Women, and other good people are fighting back hard, but the totalitarian dictators in the radical/gender feminist movement are working hard to squelch freedom of speech so that it's a crime to even criticize a radical/gender feminists. Women are a protected class you know. Maybe it would be easier to just say everyone is a protected class except men and you would get the truer nature of the bigoted man hatred that passes for government these days. That is truly how far "the man hating movement" has gotten its cancerous tentacles into the constitution of the United States.
I've had a lot of bad nights as a result of radical/gender feminism as have many, many men, and by the way I don't date. Every time I get the urge I tell myself to juggle rattlesnakes instead. It's a lot safer, given the exploitive epidemic of false accusations against men by women under the thinly veiled guise of making a fast buck.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:57 PM October 26th, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
and yet many moms don't have the luxury to be stay at home moms, In this economy and to pay a mortgage it takes many times two salaries, for factory jobs or any kind of job. There are lots of reasons why American Femminism is not the current bandwagon, I wouldn't blame it on communism, but on society for using fundalmentalist feminism as the main model, or rather even the medias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:46 PM October 26th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"I wouldn't blame it on communism, but on society for using fundalmentalist feminism...:
What's the difference?
# Fundamental feminism embraces the government as caretaker of the children.
# Fundamental feminism views the Father and the children as oppresor of the woman.
# Fundamental feminism wants to send the woman to work instead of staying at home if she really wants to.
...all like communism.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:55 PM October 26th, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"...all like communism."
Yes, and lets remember those Russian women who served in front line combat too. I remember seeing old documentary film footage of Russian women sniping Nazis. Why are American fundamental feminists unable to shoulder full front line combat duty for all women? Why are they unable to shoulder that aspect of their "fundament feminist," "commie" doctrine? Could that just be the hypocritical side of American fundamental feminism? ... talk about privileged matriarchs.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well it would be good if females were at least eligible for combat assignments and even more amazing if they were sent into action in equal numbers as men. Somehow I have a feeling it'll be the days of "Starship Troopers" before we see that happen. But significant in another way is this from the article:
"...blueprints for a lighter force of 10 active divisions, according to Defense Department sources."
Just ten? Just ten divisions? You couldn't occupy California with 10 divisions, much less Iraq. Or N. Korea, or Iran, or all three at the same time. Because as long as we keep doing what we are doing, that's what we'll have to do in order to "win" the war on terror.
I think the 10 division thing is an example of the conflict of doctrine now going on in US armed forces policy-making circles. No one wants to use the "D-word" ("Draft") except to say they won't support one. Well it takes millions of troops to occupy a piece of land of any national size. And, I mean millions, and moreso if that land is heavily-populated. So politicians want to see a 10-division force without draftees. Reality says that *if* a nation chooses to play Rome it needs to raise a large number of troops to do it. Since enlisting in the ol' Mobile Infantry doesn't appear to be real popular these days, just how do they plan on reconciling reality with politics? Answer: You can't.
Anyone who thinks "victory" in the war on terror, pursued as it is being pursued now, will be achievable with only 10 active divisions is living in his own fantasy land. If things are pursued on into the future as they are now, a draft, or ignominious defeat and the attendant collapse of US armed forces morale, already under great strain, is in America's future. The way I see it, we have three routes:
1. Stay the course, no draft and/or suppot for the current course, "defeat" inevitable.
2. Stay the course, draft and/or gain support for the current course, "victory" possible.
3. Change course, no draft, use our brains and common sense, and maybe we will not be so badly beat-up by historians 50 years hence.
BTW, I use quotes around "victory" and "defeat" because the usual ways of measuring these things are not applicable in this new context. Thus I admit in using quotes that the meaning of these words is ambiguous and possibly inapplicable entirely. I can't be sure until the party is over, if it ever will be before I punch out, one way or another. Just have to watch the movie and find out, even if that movie doesn't end before the final curtain falls.
But back to women in combat, well, as they say, pigs will fly before we see them *forced*, like men are, into combat in equal numbers as men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I've noticed while both candidates emphatically pledge not to revive the draft, neither candidate is calling for the elimination of mandatory draft registration. If there absolutely will be no draft, why maintain it? Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unlike the glass ceiling, the glass floor really is a limit on women's careers. There are jobs that are too messy, too dangerous, too low paying and too low prestige for women to perform. Combat is one of them.
It's nice to see that 'cannon fodder' is moving away from being a fate fit only for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:15 PM October 27th, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
You know, according to evolutionary Psychology, Men are expendable. NOt that I agree with this. I believe women and men are both able to serve in the military and should be able to advance at the same level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:21 PM October 27th, 2004 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
"You know, according to evolutionary Psychology, Men are expendable. NOt that I agree with this."
Oh no, of course you don't agree with what you've said. Little femi-provocateur is merely trying to insult and incite an aguement, just like females do in 95% of domestic violence events. ...but since you brought it up did it ever occur to you that after women have raised their children, and become wrinkled, dried up and physically ugly, that they too are "expendable?" ...purely in an evolutionary psychological sense that is.
Have a Happy Pumpkin Face, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:44 AM October 28th, 2004 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
true, I guess if we are just looking at physical aspects, but what about mental? inciteing and insulting leading to Domestic abuse? thats a scary statement, if words provoke violence, and a person cannot control themselves, male or female has serious self control issues. I was taught to walk away from insults until both parties calm down and resume the discussion later. That truly is a scary statement you made ray.Bottom line : insults cut short meaningful discussion, both parties suffer from it, no one can get their feelings across clearly. If you justify beating your wife because she insulted you, you have a serious problem. If I misread this, I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:59 PM October 28th, 2004 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Anon"You know, according to evolutionary Psychology, Men are expendable."
R "Little femi-provocateur is merely trying to insult and incite an arguement, just like females do in 95% of domestic violence events."
Anon "If you justify beating your wife because she insulted you, you have a serious problem."
================================================== ===================
Well by all means then let's keep the blame for the serious problem of domestic violence where it belongs with the abusive battering scamming female perpetrators and let's stop harming all the true male victims who are battered then battered again by the domestic violence industry, not to mention male vilifying radical/gender feminists. We wouldn't want to add to the nightmare for any domestic violence victim, just because he's male, now would we? here
After all there's no exucuse for abuse here and here
My suggestion to all of the man hating bigots in the domestic violence movement is here
I'd wish you a nice day, but... here
Please do not scroll up the page of linked items. All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up
I hope I was able to impart a little more enlightenment to you, but if not. Here's a good book you might read, The Twelve Things You Didn't Know About Domestic Violence here or Violence & Gender Reexamined here or there are concise articles by Glenn Sacks here and here There's a whole lot more, but I don't want to overwhelm you. I know you may conditioned to "Women Ways of Knowing" so all this logic and common sense might just be too much all at once.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:16 AM October 29th, 2004 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
you know having been a victims advocate in several places, I know there are many resources for men being abused,or raped. I don't understand how you can't see that many organizations are trying to expose the abuses against men, and help that percentage. Do I think that the huge percentage of women that come in my office battered or raped are lying? No ray, I have the forensic evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:23 PM October 29th, 2004 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
"Do I think that the huge percentage of women that come in my office battered or raped are lying? No ray, I have the forensic evidence."
Over 90 men, of the 151 men and 1 woman on this site here , were convicted of rape (among other crimes) using "forensic evidence." The only problem was they weren't guilty and DNA evidence has proven it. How many men are sitting rotting in jails today who actually had sex with the woman they are falsely accused of raping so DNA evidence will never free them?
Where is the outrage when a woman blatantly lies and files a false police report about domestic violence? Bruises do not turn instantly yellow, but a woman can use any old bruise she gives herself even one that is weeks old, blame it on her male intimate, and swear it is fresh. The police are either so corrupt, or so stupid, or both that they won't even arrest the scamming female when it is pointed out to them the different colors a bruise is in the weeks it takes to heal. Even when shown conflicting pictures and written statements the radial/gender feminist man hating police persist in their hate crime against a man just because they're that degenerated into evil by the bigoted training of the corrupt man hating domestic violence movement. Even if by some miracle the scamming falsely accusing woman should be arrested for the felony she alleged, she would only be arrested on misdemeanor charges. Where is the equal justice in that? I guess the crooks just have to keep the incentive for their racket going some way.
If the police spent as much time "objectively" gathering evidence as they do destroying and fabricating evidence (to rationalize their radical/gender feminist profiling prejudices), then there wouldn’t be nearly so many innocent men denied justice and ruined by FALSE ACCUSATIONS!
"you know having been a victims advocate in several places,"
Maybe it's just because of all the radical/gender feminist man hating lies I've seen employed by the domestic violence hate men movement that I have a very low opinion of the domestic violence industry and its advocates. Domestic violence law and the domestic violence movement is the biggest scam in America today. I have no confidence in the integrity of anyone advocating the radical/gender feminist man hating ideology enshrined in that movement.
There are pitiful few services for men and the only advocating concerning men I've seen coming from the radical/gender feminist domestic violence hate movement is the vilification of all men as batterers, and the denial of services for valid victims of domestic violence thereby doubly victimizing them. Can you just imagine how utterly horrible that feels?
here and here and here
Let's face it, the message the domestic violence industry, and the vast majority of America, sends to men and male victims of domestic violence is "Get Tough or Die." When you look at that fact that men are 75% of suicides it appears they are complying. Of the top 10 causes of death by disease, men lead in all categories, complying yet again.
Please do not scroll up the page of linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
Some domestic violence advocates even have the gall to complain when a police officer is arresting more than a certain percentage of women, although the number is only in the single digit range. Some advocates are outraged when an officer's arrests creep into the double digit range.
Since when is arresting people for crimes supposed to be based on a quota system defined by a misandrist movement instead of actual evidence? Men feel more like they are living in communist Russia instead of America, and let's face it, America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, having now passed Russia, and 93% of that inmate population is men. The hate war on men being waged by the man hating radical/gender feminist: domestic violence movement, sexual harassment industry, women's commissions and women's studies programs must end.
We know you care about women's rights, but would you do the same for a man? Where is the humanity in the radial/gender feminist hate movement enshrined into law? We know clearly where the cruelty, abuse, and hate are, but where is humanity? What can the radical/gender feminist movement do to stop it's hate, cruelty, violence, and abuse against all men?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:58 AM October 28th, 2004 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder ray. Happy pumpkin face to you as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:16 AM October 28th, 2004 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
in the evolutionary sense, expendable meaning that since one man can fertilize thousands of eggs and one woman can only have one child a year and approx.13 children in a lifetime. The more women we have the more we can populate the earth. That was the science that was used to keep woman from joining the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:39 PM October 28th, 2004 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
"in the evolutionary sense, expendable meaning that since one man can fertilize thousands of eggs and one woman can only have one child a year and approx.13 children in a lifetime. The more women we have the more we can populate the earth. That was the science that was used to keep woman from joining the military."
Well then given the over 42,000,000,000 human lives that have been taken by women since 1973 (in America alone) through a women's right to chose (abortion) I guess we really don't have such a strong need to "populate the earth." Women themselves have clearly proven that women's child bearing skills are not all that needed in a world that is grossly overpopulated.
Thank you for helping to point out women's greatly diminished modern need as "child bearer." Let's hope that point helps to bring women a step closer to "full equality" in the military, i.e. front line combat service. It is such a warm and fuzzy feeling for me to find this woman empowering, politically correct, common ground with you.
Ironically men don't have "rights to choose" like women, or even rights over their own bodies to the extent women have. In my local post office hangs a poster from Selective Service (SS) that says, "A Man's Gotta Do What A Man's Gotta Do" (register for selective service), while women are exempt. When I drive 15 miles to my place of employment, a college, a poster hangs in the show case of the women's studies program that says, "Keep Your Hands Off My Body." Women have the right to say whether a child will be born, or killed and men have no say in the matter. If a woman wants an abortion and the man wants his child, the child is killed. If a woman wants to have the baby, but the man doesn't he is stuck with 18 years of child support.
The radical/gender feminist equation that has brought America so much bigoted man hating law is clearly abounding with gender inequality. Men are oppressed in ways that have never been addressed, while billions and billions are spent on women's programs every year. It is a long road, but men are begin to make the effort here and here and other places.
Sincerely, Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
