|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:28 PM May 30th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"If we as a nation endorse the idea of women in combat that engages the enemy deliberately, we would be saying that violence against women is OK as long as it happens at the hand of the enemy," says Ms. Donnelly. "That would be a setback for our civilization."
Actually, I view that statement by Elaine Donnely as a setback for civilization. Employing her reasoning, or more accurately, lack of reasoning, War Is Just Another Excuse For Violence Against Men , and underscores societies acceptance of the disposability of men lives to warfare.
The present "conditions of service" in war (by sex) are an enormously unjust legal precedent against men. They undermine the equal rights, equal protections, and equal justice of all U.S. citizens, that our U.S. Constitution is supposed to guarantee for all people, but doesn't for men.
Why Send Only Men To War Then Blame Only Men For Violence as the man-hating, male discriminating, gender feminists do? They loudly talk about equal rights for women out of one side of their mouth, then hypocritically fall silent as they ignore the inequality in citizen responsibility to military service. Putting women on the front lines of combat in equal numbers to men should be the center-piece of the gender feminist agenda. In fact, American women (exclusively) should be on the front lines of combat to make up for the historical oppression men have endured. When as many women have died defending our nation is wars as have men, only then should equal numbers of men and women serve in combat.
One thing our elected gender bigoted representatives (in all political parties) still don't understand this Memorial Day is that Men Are Not Disposable any more than women are.
We (men) shall be cannon fodder no more some day.
Sincerely, Ray
Click “View Larger” to see linked graphics. Disregard other linked info to graphics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:49 PM May 30th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"...gender feminists... They loudly talk about equal rights for women out of one side of their mouth, then hypocritically fall silent as they ignore the inequality in citizen responsibility to military service."
Someone should contact those gender feminists at Harvard who were outraged when Lawrence Sommers pointed out his belief that there were innate differences in the performance of women and men. They should be overwhelmingly supportive of women in combat to further prove their propaganda. In fact, Lawrence Sommers should be supportive too, considering his $50,000,000.00 package to show females are as good as men in Science and Engineering, and to further gender sensitivity training. They should be supportive, unless of course they are just gender biased and talking out of both sides of their mouths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:49 PM May 30th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, these numbers released by the DOD intentionally omit the thousands of amputees, quad- and parapalegics whose lives and once-imagined futures are essentially over....
And still, no exit strategy in sight.
Plans for ten more years of imposed "liberation...." are in the works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:46 AM June 1st, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The feminists are for women in combat because it gives women the chance to live out every feminist woman's dream and that is, of course, killing men. LOTS of men!
Jinx
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "Excellent Memorial Day piece in The Christian Science Monitor on-line examines the complex debate about US women soldiers in combat roles in Iraq. Reservations about women being expected to function as killers, concerns about accepting violence against women if it’s inflicted by the enemy, and female's physical limitations are part of the stew. Female Army reservists are being excluded from the ongoing Iraqui army and police training effort due to cultural sensitivities on gender roles.