|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:51 PM December 13th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Elaine Donnelly heads the independent Center for Military Readiness.
http://www.cmrlink.org/elainebio.asp
I don't think she is a feminist. It seems more likely she is a conservative. Does anyone know for sure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:22 PM December 13th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
That's my understanding too, that this is a conservative-leaning group that doesn't support women in combat, although some feminists have taken this same position for their own selfish and hypocritical reasons.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've always thought of Elaine Donnelly as a conservative along the lines of Phylis Schlafly, at least when it comes to women and the military. I think Donnelly has served on at least one high level advisory board related to military policy and gender roles. As far as I know, she has always been a kind of watch dog speaking out against putting women into high-risk positions in the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:52 PM December 13th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't think she is a feminist. It seems more likely she is a conservative"
All feminists are conservative to a certain extent, that is, to the extent that they want to conserve traditional gender privileges as they apply to women.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:39 PM December 13th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"All feminists are conservative to a certain extent, that is, to the extent that they want to conserve traditional gender privileges as they apply to women."
exactly...
and the comments by this lady are just too funny.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She does sound like both conservative and a feminist. I love how they want a double standard. Feminists push for more and more women in the military and other predominantly male jobs, yet when those jobs turn out to be dangerous, they don't want their own exposed to the danger. To them it's ok if men die, but if a woman dies, they're up in arms.
You gotta love their double standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:39 AM December 14th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that would make sense, bro, except that I happen to know that :
A. Donnelly IS consistent. She has been one of those most opposed to the DACOWITZ organization within the military which has long been nothing but a feminist tool.
B.I don't think Donnelly wants women in the military period. She doesn't think women should fight, and she doesn't think they CAN fight, which is certainly not a position taken by feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:20 AM December 14th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"She doesn't think women should fight, and she doesn't think they CAN fight, which is certainly not a position taken by feminists"
Feminists believe women can/should fight when the fighting role is status enhancing. Thus for example, feminists want women to be fighter pilots, nuclear sub commanders etc. These roles are status enhancing and, given America's high tech superiority , relatively low risk.
When the fighting role is degrading then feminists do a flip flop ie they decide women can't/shouldn't fight. Thus feminists do not want women on infantry patrols where there is a high risk of being blown to bits by booby traps , or being used as target practise by enemy snipers.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's the glass floor. Some jobs are too degrading or dangerous, so women don't have to do them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think she is a feminist. It seems more likely she is a conservative.
Sorry, but I just don't see much of a difference between the two.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminists. ala Hillary, want women to have the option to serve in any position in the military they choose. So, if they decide for themselves they want to fly B1 bombers, they should be granted that and given training without being evaluated on skill or ability (gender norming.) But if they don't want to do the more dangerous grunt work of the infantry, they can decide against that. It's the same old "having it both ways" feminism.
Donnelly, on the other hand, is against allowing women in combat or any other roles that put them at risk, regardless of whether or not they want to assume those roles. She is opposed to gender-norming, and uses that as justification to exclude females from combat. Notice how the Clinton-style feminists are silent at the times when women may be called upon to assume more risk. They are happy to let Donnelly win her battles to keep women from mandatory integration into warfare, even if they have to sit by and listen to how women are just not as capable as men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Feminists take a conservative line on many issues. Pornography is one.
Feminists are neither consistently conservative nor liberal. What they do is be liberal when it suits them, and conservative when that suits them.
Their views on sexuality and the miltary provide contrasting examples. Female sexuality and gay sexuality are good, and they take a liberal line on them. Male heterosexuality, on the other hand, is bad, and they take a conservative view on it, aligning themselves with the religious Right over things like pornography (pornography intended for women and gay people is fine, though. The only constraint on lesbian pornography is that it must be designed in such a way that it does not appeal to straight men).
They are the same on the military. As I said in one of my recent posts, their view of the military is schizophrenic at the best of times anyway. They say that war is one of the bad things that men do to women, but they want more women in the military. They are liberal about women in military roles until the shooting starts, and then they come over all conservative.
What feminism does is to try to maximise women's interests at the expense of men's, and it does whatever is necessary to that end. Forget any notion of equality. If you think that feminism is about promoting equality and justice, put it out of your head. Feminism is about promoting a narrow, heterophobic view of what constitutes women's interests, and the feminist agenda is very heavily determined by a self-appointed minority of women - more or less dominated by professional activists, lesbians, college academics and the authoritarian Left - who openly despise the majority of women.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Feminists take a conservative line on many issues. Pornography is one."
True, but keep in mind they are only against WOMEN being sexualized in pornography. They generaly do not care when men are.
Alot of feminists dig those dominatrix sites where men are routinely humiliated and have their genitals mutilated.
Many femaroids just eat that stuff up.
Which is one of the reasons that sort of thing has become more prevelant in "entertainment".
Oh, yeah and because there are wussie-poopie men who get off on it, too. I think there may be a latent homosexuality going on there, I don't know.
Quentin Tarantino would know, probably. He appearantly LIKES his guys trussed up.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Alot of feminists dig those dominatrix sites where men are routinely humiliated
How do you know that? I bet most of the people consuming that kind of material are men.
And there's nothing wrong with that, it also doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality.
The sexual play with power is totally detached from 'real life', like any game. Too many people can't see this and this is why you get all these weird interpretations, like when a man dominant in real life likes dominance in sex, he "extends his behaviour to his sexuality" - but when he likes to be tied up by his girl, he suddenly "needs a counterweight to his everyday life". Nonsense!
And in contrast, I once read some article by a sex therapist who was proud of having "cured" a feminist who liked to be dominated in bed. He also didn't get that there's just no connection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're not going to believe this but when I was doing my usual 'spying' on feminist message boards, they actually said that the practice of being a dominatrix and sexually dominating men was degrading and oppressive to WOMEN and another form of patriarchal oppression against women's sexuality!And they said 'dominating' not 'humiliate' or 'abuse' because of course, it can only be the female in referred to in those victim terms according to the feminists.
That's right, the feminists believe that a sadistic misandrist bitch who enjoys humiliating and abusing men for her own sexual delights and ego/power-trip, is a poor victim of patriarchy and male heterosexuality. A lot of the feminazis on that forum even spoke of their past experiences of being dominatrix, and they said that they left the S&M underground because being a dominatrix and abusing men during sex was oh so oppressive to them--the feminists, NOT the male victims.
So even hetero-dominatrixes are on the feminists' "Victims of Patriarchy and Male Heterosexuality" list.
"And in contrast, I once read some article by a sex therapist who was proud of having 'cured' a feminist who liked to be dominated in bed."
Yeah, it's perfectly okay for a woman to dominate a guy during sex. But when it's the other way around, oh no, patriarchy and the tyrannical male heterosexuality is at it again. Not that we should use abuse, humiliation, or violence against each other in sex. I don't understand how anyone could enjoy being abused during sex. People are weird. Violence, abuse, and humiliation should NOT be apart of a sexual encounter.
And as for the 'feminist vs. Conservative' issue; the feminists will use *any* political ideology in order to keep female priveleges and gain even more. If it will give them political, social, and economic power, they'll use it, and it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum it's from. Feminism is modern day Machiavellianism. It's all about more power for them and less power (and no power) for you guys. And Feminists need those chivalrous politicians after all.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:09 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
n.j.-
Thea just elaborated better than I could have.
As far as the "latent homosexuality" goes with men who get off on seeing other men humiliated goes, Why would a MAN get off on ANOTHER MAN, unless he was latently or even openly gay.
The guys who go to the (equaly sickening) sites of females being dominated get off on the GIRLS.
Guys like Quentin Tarantino literaly get off sexualy by the sight of a MAN being bound, humiliated and sodomized. Alot of so called straight men, particularly in "entertainment" seem to be this way. As far as it being noemal to WANT to be dominated, humiliated and so on being "normal" that is debatable.
One cannot have the highest self esteem if he or she LIKES to be humiliated and de-humanized. Most of the guys that I know of who dig it are wussie-poopie ,feminist lap-dogs. These are the guys that go along with the feminists on all their insane ideology. They are the guys who don't see anything wrong with T-shirts that say "BOYS ARE STUPID THROW ROCKS AT THEM!" they are the guys who see nothing wrong with and even ENJOY seeing other men kicked in the balls or degraded in other ways in the media. This is why I say that the "entertainment" media is run primairily by wussie-poopie men. These guys produce movie after movie, show after show, commercial after commercial depicting men as sub-human, in degrading situations, being dominated by the wife, in "bondage situations", and many other types of humiliating circumstances.
To them this is how they WANT other men to feel. Many can't understand why many other men object to what they see as "normal". To these wussie-poopie men, women should have toatal dominion over all things, including men. Their image of paradice is to be toataly sub-serviant to the female. They would like nothing more than to be kept tied to a dog house in the backyard of the mistresse. To be lashed by the whip,to be walked like a dog (as in the VOODOO jeans billboard) to be stripped of their very humanity. This GETS THEM OFF!
If this were kept to themselves, I would agree that it is realativly harmless. But they, like the feminists want this to be a REALITY.
That is why they try to normalize the ill treatment of men. And they have to a point sucseeded. The "BOYS ARE STUPID THROW ROCKS AT THEM" has an EFFECT! the groin kick seen repeatedly HAS AN EFFECT! Seeing men grovel before their wives on sitcoms and commercials HAVE AN EFFECT! Seeing two naked men being led on leashes by a woman (VOODOO JEANS ad) HAS AN EFFECT! Seeing men constantly de-humanized, phycologicaly and physicaly abused, in "entertainment" HAS AN EFFECT! Seeing violent upon violent act upon men over and over and over and over, HAS AN EFFECT! Hearing men and maleness constantly being put down HAS AN EFFECT! It is all done to erode the self esteem of not just men but more importantly YOUNG BOYS! So that they TOO will feel it is "normal" to not only see men depicted in this way, but DESIRABLE. even SEXUAL.
If that's "normal" then maybe I'm in the wrong movement...,
Thundercloud
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There must be something to this new policy, because I see a lot of women who have left the military. I believe that if most men in the military were even given a choice on combat participation, they would pass if they could serve without it. That privilege/freeride is currently available to women and CMR and NOW thinks its OK.
One issue that has never come to light in any of these discussions is the fact and/or policy that any person in the military is eligible to be forced into a combat unit if the need arises and regardless of their MOS. The only thing keeping this from occurring to women would be the existing policy/freeride omitting them from combat.
Men are being denied equal protection of the policy and/or law. Women are being granted a privilege/freeride, and elevated status that has never previously existed for military personnel, or at least similarly regarded the different way officers and enlisted personnel are. Women have existed in the military in order to be playmates of the brass. This policy is the primary reason that I never joined, and I would venture to guess is a primary reason for other men looking elsewhere.
During a radio interview some years back, Gloria Steinem was repeatly asked when women were going to start registering with SSS, her reponse was that "If it was not for the women in the military today there would be a draft." My reponse OK if 53% of the draftees are women.
I have wrestled with this issue for most of my life and I wonder if there is something wrong with my view of women or society in general that makes me feel this way, in believing that the price of equal rights is equal responsibilites. Due to the opinion of CMR it appears my belief is not necessarily the mainstream, and it makes me wonder if there is a right answer, when something like this is truly a matter of life and death?
I do know that slaves make poor defenders of freedom, and the decision to participate in combat should be that of the individual. If any other approach is taken by the government it will be worse than Vietnam, because the exclusion of the majority of the population will have never before been part of the equation.
If the military would truly make service equal as to performance requirements and recognition, we would not be talking about any lack of recruits, because even if you suck someone in under false pretenses upon initial enlistment, it will haunt you at re-up time. I hope we can this agree on this issue, while it is important and before it critical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:59 AM December 14th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I've read Donnely before and she is a conservative, not a feminist, and has always taken this chivalrous view towards women in combat.
Personally, as a non liberal MRA, I'm thrilled to see this happening. It's really going to "p _ _ _ off" conservative women, and it's going to put radical/gender feminists on the spot even more. A woman can do a better job than a man? Okay, great. Let the men completely sit this war out, and let the women girl power themselves all they want. You want an ERA? Fine, here are your equal rights too. It's high time women had the responsibility and oppression that men so abundantly must bear, since radical/gender feminists insist on vilifying us so liberally with lies about male privilege.
Conservative women like Donnely don't like what's happening? Tough! Take it up with your radical/gender feminist "sisters." As we all know, average men really have no rights, or voice, when it comes to requiring women to be accountable in war, or any other area.
If you go to the web sites of the Concerned Women for America, or the "Independent Women's Forum"
you will see that #1, neither ever refers to themselves as "feminists." Conservative (Christian) CWA clearly does not favor women in combat, and they are adamantly opposed to radical/gender feminists.
IWF doesn't appear to clearly address the women in combat position from what I've found, but they surely go after radical/gender feminists in areas like the glass ceiling myth, domestic violence law, Title IX, women's studies programs, female victimhood, sexual harassment, etc.
In fact, IWF has probably done as much or more to contain the radical/gender feminist misandry as all the men's groups combined.
I have heard these groups, along with Ifeminist, spoken of as "being against women's rights," during a women's studies sponsored lecture on the campus of UCLA.
How do I personally feel about women in combat, just this, "No more double standards if we are going to follow the radical/gender feminist rules.” In fact, send radical/gender feminists to combat before men are sent, and if we are going to follow conservative women's rules, then these women had better step forward quickly and loudly with their reasoning of how it is equally just and right to exclude women from war, because I'm advocating that all women must bear the same burdens in war as men. No more special privileges for the females who either oppress, or ignore the oppressions of men. We are all human beings and it is high time that all women realized that, and began treating men with all the human rights they are fully entitled too.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, Ray. It is interesting how radical/gender feminism has blurred the boundaries between liberal and conservative. I am a liberal, but I find myself supporting IWF, and I agree that they have done a lot to contain the radical/gender feminist agenda. Long may they continue.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I agree with Donnelly on this. I don't want women in combat because they are inferior warfighters. And I don't want to send a sub-optimized fighting force onto the battlefield for any reason, political correctness, or otherwise. (That being said, I'm not against drafting women for the right roles or women serving in general on the same terms as men.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:44 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
That is really too bad for them, as others have said and I reiterate, let them pull their own weight. Answer this, what group in our society has all the priveledges of its counter part and more, including voting, yet has no legal responsibility to defend it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:57 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't want women in combat because they are inferior warfighters."
You make a good point, and giving women the opportunity to suceed or fail could get other people killed if standards are lowered in training just to allow women to advance (gender equality).
It is easy to say put them in all the jobs men have, and let them sink or swim, but when you're the guy next to them it could make things really dicey. Even all female units aren't the answer. If they got in trouble, some other unit might have to take extra risks just to resuce them.
I think this is one of those danged if you do, or danged if you don't situations.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. If we lower our standards within the military, people will get killed. If a female cannot meet the standards of the military, both physical and/or mental, then she should ask why she's there. If she can meet the standards, then she should put up and shut up. If we send her to the front to fight, then she should follow her orders and go out and fight along side the males.
Also if there is a draft, I say we should also draft women too. If they want equality, then they should also be included in the draft. As of right now, they are not included in the draft if it is reinstated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:18 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"Also if there is a draft, I say we should also draft women too."
Absolutely, 100% yes. If nothing else it will be fascinating to see what "priveleged exemptions/deferments" some of them will try to get out of service on.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I guarentee that drafting women will solve the population collapse problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So draft women starting at age 45.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I only have one objection to drafting women: assuming that there is a requirement to draft one woman for each man drafted, and assuming women are kept out of combat (and that the definintion of combat is meaningful), there may be a tremendous surplus of women in uniform. I'm just not sure that it makes sense to draft women if there enough women volunteering to fill the need. So on the practical matter, I'm ambivalent on drafting women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:41 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
"...there may be a tremendous surplus of women in uniform. I'm just not sure that it makes sense to draft women if there enough women volunteering to fill the need. So on the practical matter, I'm ambivalent on drafting women."
Jobs and programs in the military should be filled just like sports classes are filled in college. Men have to cancel programs like combat if those programs are not equally provided for women. Isn't that how Title IX is supposed to work to make things fair and equitable between the sexes?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray, I'm not at all sure what point you're making here. Might be my limited IQ, but please explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:29 AM December 16th, 2004 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with your IQ, Frank h. Looking at your posts on this topic, I think you have a slight case of chivilaryitis.
Hotspur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:03 PM December 16th, 2004 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
"Ray, I'm not at all sure what point you're making here."
I was trying to sarcastically apply the reasoning of Title IX (used in college sports) to show the hypocrisy employed in exempting women from "war sports."
Women use Title IX to eliminate men's sports programs so theoretically men and women have equal opportunity on the athletic playing field, but radical/gender feminists lose their "voices," when it comes to war.
It appears it is the conservative women who are crying out for men to "chivalrously" step forward and save them from combat, but I think women in general have milked men so hard that most men just aren't too sympathetic to the plight of women being sent off to war to "take it like a man." After decades of abuse and lies, and insults men are learning not to be there, when women want to use them in one more situation (war) as the door mat of human conflict. I hope that's a little clearer.
Here's an interesting article I found today by Jane Chastain on this topic, only she is even more outspoken that it should be men dying in war to save women from having to die in war.
Do Army Boots Come In Pink?
"Hello! Are there any real men left in Washington, or are they all – to borrow a Schwarzenegger phrase – just girlie men afraid to stand up to a few feminists in their midst?"
"The idea that we will be sending women into combat zones while there are able-bodied men working as supply clerks, radar operators, etc. is absurd!"
"Anyone with half a brain knows that when a battle begins, all the gender-norming in the world will not help women survive. Also, it doesn't matter if these female soldiers are designated combat or combat support if they are in the line of fire."
Now where did I put my collection of white feathers. I so want to make a nice war bonnet to wear to the next meeting of the radical/gender feminist auxiliary to show how much I support all women serving in combat before any man. I'm just soooo equal opportunity, when it comes to leveling the hypocritical playing field that women have been so disadvantaging men with. I know I'm being callused to the plight of women, but misandrist abuse has a way of doing that.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my take is different, and it isn't based on chivalry. I simply believe that, when it comes to fighting a war, as opposed to a soccer game, the stakes are national sovereignty, even national existence, and that the people you put on the battlefield ought to be the best you have. The Israeli, British, and, yes, American Armies have all done studies over the past five years or so (no, I don't have any links) that pretty-well demonstrate that because of their size, strength, quickness, and biology, women are not as good as men at warfighting. Another poster on this thread made the comment that putting a woman in the same foxhole actually might endanger the man, and I agree. Oh, yeah, there is a small percentage of women who can match the average male soldier on those characteristics, I think it's on the order of 3% or so.
But the fact of the matter is, if you want to put a superior fighting force on the ground, it ought to have few, if any women in it.
In fact, if you go back to the beginning of the Afghan campaugn in the current war on terror, you'll note that the first to go in were the Marines. When asked why this was, Don Rumsfeld said that they were more battle-ready, but some analysts concluded that the reason was that, in the Army, the PT standards had been lowered to accommodate the women, and overall, that made the Army less ready.
I'm of the opinion that we ought to assemble the best we have to fight wars when we need to fight wars. That means men, for the most part, on the front line and that also means fewer military career opportunities for women. We take the risks, we ought to be recognized for them. Chivalry has nothing to do with it. It's survival. It's the feminists that conveniently forget these practical matters. We ought not to do so, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BF and I were talking about this, a study one of my classmates found basically said that at the end of basic training women had only 75% of the upper body strength and 80% of the lower body strength of their male counterparts. However, if women stayed for additional training, they came much closer to men. So, my solution is: "have longer periods of training for women."
bf: "nope, then it is favoritism."
me: "But if a guy had only the same amount of body strength at the end of basic training, he'd flunk out!"
bf: "Right, and you can't flunk out women trainees, because it is discrimination."
I feel bad for male soldiers stuck with comrades who are only there because the military wants to appear neither favoriting nor discriminating. :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"However, if women stayed for additional training, they came much closer to men."
I'm not a fitness expert, nor am I an expert in the unique features of the genders, but i do have some exposure to what happens when you strive for 100% of total fitness capacity: The closer you get, the harder you have to work to stay there. So I submit to you that, while it may be theoretically possible for a woman to achive parity with a man in terms of strength and quickness, the woman will have to work far harder to stay at that peak level than the man would.
I think that's impractical, because there are no gyms on the battlefiled and nutrition on the battlefield is something of a problem also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:38 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
...but I think that feminists are after, not EQUALITY as it truely is, but CATEGORICAL EQUALITY...,
Which is weird, because then you have NO real equality at all. Of course that is to the feminist's advantage. What they want, in reality, is the INEQUALITY of men, piriod.
If not, they would want equality with men in ALL aspects. The draft, child custody, alimony, D.V., social and political resposibility, etc.
But we all know that they DON'T want that.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:50 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and don't forget the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men fighting in the US military today are like blacks during the Civil War fighting for the South!....Why????
Women should be drafted and sent into combat! It is really all about their rights and freedom anyway.
I hate sounding cynical about this but as long as this country has a corrupt femiroid agenda keeping judiciary that treats 50% of its population like cattle then any war that the US gets into under the pretext of defending freedom and human rights is a hypocritical lie and a farce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:04 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women should be drafted and sent into combat! It is really all about their rights and freedom anyway."
I can't argue with that. The reality is men are exploited patriarchs, not privileged patriarchs. Considering how greatly the law infringes on male freedoms, compared to female freedoms, the slave analogy is very appropriately spoken.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:03 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Let's just clone people and send the clones to do the fighting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:36 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not, I saw a story on one of the cable channels about armed robots that are under developement for urban, ground combat. "Terminator is under developement." I'll be back!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:54 PM December 16th, 2004 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Clones?
Oh, no.
My uncle always said there'd have to be TWO of me to get any uglier...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men fighting in the US military today are like blacks during the Civil War fighting for the South!....Why????
I would have made a comparison to Irish soldiers fighting for the North in the Civil War. They fought to prove their patriotism to a country that wasn't all that interested in having them, and in a war that benefitted another group that would directly compete with them for jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. When the Bush administration embarks on the next phase of its permanent war (Iran or Syria look likely), send in an army consisting entirely of feminists. That would shut them up permanently.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:23 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
I caught a discussion on this on Scarborough Country hosted by Pat Buchannan. Boy, he is such a chivralistic dolt. They had a female guest saying, oh, women are not strong enough to hold the front lines, men are stronger. Pat B. was grilling the other male guest as to why he wanted to see women on the front lines. He made it so clear that a mans life is worth less than a womens. He was saying, " you would actually put a woman in a position where they can get killed? "
Sorry, the free ride is over. Guys like him are dinosaurs. Ladies, you've started something that there is no undoing. I am 31 years old, and I've been sickened most of my life with this girl power crap. I have no sympathy. And then to see this women back peddle, "oh dear, oh my we are just women" ( batting eyelashes) it makes me sick!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the stuff just sounds so DUMB.
"Oh, how can we let young mothers go to be killed?"
So the fem-twits are saying it is better for young fathers to be killed? Great idea. >.
Huh, reminds me of this one girlie I know who said her bf is going to join the army so she can use the signing bonus to buy breast implants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Huh, reminds me of this one girlie I know who said her bf is going to join the army so she can use the signing bonus to buy breast implants."
All she's going to do, is maybe get the breast implants, but definantly run off to another man while her old bf goes to the front and has a high chance of dying.
M-16's are not that heavy and the back packs they're wearing these days into battle is considerably lighter then before. The only things that are still heavy is the armor plating they wear. However, none of this is so heavy a woman can't wear them. (Heck wasn't it a short while back various women were saying they can do everything a man can do?) So I say hand them a rifle, a backpack, and tell them to go out to the front and fight with the rest of the troops. Not everyone can be helecopter pilots, radar operators, and other army specialists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:56 PM December 16th, 2004 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
Breast implants...!
Sounds like she needs a BRAIN implant.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Breast implants...!
>Sounds like she needs a BRAIN implant.
Good lord, she seriously does. Is a nutjob in a half to begin with, but when I heard that was her latest "great idea" my jaw hit the floor. I don't know if anyone finally managed to dissuade her, I hope so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>M-16's are not that heavy and the back packs they're wearing these days into battle is considerably lighter then before. The only things that are still heavy is the armor plating they wear. However, none of this is so heavy a woman can't wear them. (Heck wasn't it a short while back various women were saying they can do everything a man can do?) So I say hand them a rifle, a backpack, and tell them to go out to the >front and fight with the rest of the troops. Not >everyone can be helecopter pilots, radar >operators, and other army specialists.
I believe, once again from one of my classmates, that the average weight a soldier is expected to carry from a drop [not necessarily plane drop] in Afghanistan is 110lb, and then is expected to run with that for 10 miles. The average female cadet weighs 120lb. :P
I could be wrong, and they could always develop lighter body armor and such. Honestly, I don't think women SHOULD automatically be shuffled into non-combat positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:57 AM December 17th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
SARCASM
Just in time for the holidays a new U.N. based charity could address this serious world issue.
"Boards for Broads" Save your favorite woman from the coming end of the world flood and show your support for sound U.N. aid and relief programs.
Remember the U.N. had to take the money in that oil for food trick, cause everybody knew people can't eat oil. It makes em sick. The U.N. thimks this one will work so trust the U.N.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
