|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:00 PM January 12th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I was over at democraticunderground the other day and they had this topic for one thread. Of course it was discrimination off the bat. One woman stated something like "and the rich BOYS aren't going over there". I didn't reply, or cared to, but-ah, I wondered if she realized the rich girls weren't going either, of the fact that the rich girls don't even have to sign up for selective service as those rich boys do. Now I agree rich boys aren't the ones being sent over there. But I was a bit offended at these women for having the nerve to complain about "rich boys" not being sent off to war as if they were in the same boat as the men who are, and have always been sent off to war.
When I was on that thread I only read one person (whose post was talking about a disproportionate amount of minority casualties) state in small sentence at the end state that the disproportionate causalties applies to gender as well. He said women made up 15% of the armed forces yet only suffered 2% of the casualties.
If that is true, and it seemed true to me, but not only that, but women make up around 51% of the total US population and yet only make up 15% of the armed forces. As was also obvious from common sense. But when I read the thread not one peep on that. Just women complaining about how they're treated.
I'm starting to just ignore and laugh off these complaints and not take much offense or stock in them because I see these particular complaining women as childish and selfish, and these men pussy whipped. hey, it's true. They're either completely stupid or ass kissers. I'd rather be stupid than an ass kisser personally.
When I have argued with them I will simply apply their logic they use with race and class (and even gender, ie women) and apply them to gender. They do not want equality for women but advantages for womem. Then I become a sexist pig for pointing out what would be more than obvious to them and their own logic for any other group acting in the same way, yet not women. And I'm the sexist.
there's my rant.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 05:00 AM January 13th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I made a couple similar rants on that forum and was banned from it about a year ago. They are very interested in hearing only one-side of any issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:38 PM January 13th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
No suprise there.
That's one of the reasons I don't even bother going to websites like that one. Because they ARE so one sided. Say one thing they don't agree with and 'BAM!' you're banned. And it seems like the more sense you make, the bigger of a threat you are precieved as being.
Here at MANNN, however I notice that while we will come down (sometimes hared) on people we disagree with, (Like Loianne, Xamot or Phaedra) the worst thing to happen to them is that we may call them a "Troll", or something. But I don't know of anyone who's been banned from MANN for being on the "other side" of the issues.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"He said many women have joined because the 228th is the only non-combat unit in the area."
Like to bet these women demand equal pay and pension rights, and, what percentage will surprisingly discover themselves pregnant before actual deployment ? ? ?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
