|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 06:37 PM January 13th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
“SCORES of women have been killed and wounded in Iraq!! Is that REALLY worse than the THOUSANDS of MEN killed and wounded in Iraq? Apparently, it's not just the feminists that are anti-male. Even the anti-feminists like Charen and O'Beirne are anti-male!"
What about the hundred of thousands Iraqi civilians, Men, Women and Children killed & maimed in this barbarous war. And let us not forget the prisoners without trial. Oh I know, it is the new White man’s burden to spread democracy and freedom. Give me a break. F@3k the right! They scare the living hell out of me for they have little compassion for others (Blacks, Asian, Arabs, Indians, Chinese, Iraqis) and are the most likely side to destroy our world. F&3k the left for they want to destroy fabric of society. Together they work hand in hand at opposite ends. Dumb asses! To hell with them both.
If there is a war, then it should be fought by men and not bloody women, because women are a nuisance. Men will feel obliged to defend them; women are more emotional and thus if put in the front line are more likely to get savagery and attack men who have surrendered, or maybe just break down, or go nuts and not obey commands.
Just a question to the "men": Would you allow a girlfriend to take a bullet for you?
If the answer is yes I think the feminist have succeeded with you and maybe you should consider joining them.
What is the men’s movement about? Can someone PLEASE tell me exactly what it is! Is it about correcting the fallacies of feminism and ultimately destroying it or is it about trying to get the same absurd laws applied to women as well as men, so we can both get screwed evenly? Are we bloody different or are we the same as the feminist claim.
Does anyone here want to create an androgynous society?
Some of the men on this site should grow some balls and stop behaving like pussies.
Sorry for the spurt of anger… but I am a man deal with it.
BTW: The new Annoyance VAWA law does not apply to me cause I live in the UK. :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:04 PM January 13th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"Does anyone here want to create an androgynous society?" Not bloody likely! EQUALITY means for everyone, Women are People too, no? Or would you prefer to oppress Women so that you can feel more Manly? Women by the way have been proven to be more vicous than Men. As far as being more emotional, perhaps you have believed to much propaganda? Some Men should do more than believe everything that they were taught. Some Men should think with their big head, and not their little one. But, I suppose that some men dream of days gone by when a Woman could be legally beaten, kept in the kitchen and not allowed to think or act as a Person. We in this country have merry old England to thank for the formation of our current laws, ever think about that? I have balls, but I think with my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 08:31 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I have balls, but I think with my mind.
Yeah you have balls… its an expression. I mean become a man and behave like one. Currently I am not saying you’re not a man just clarifying the expression, which I think you understood in the first place.
There is little doubt in my mind that women are more vicious than men. I also believe women are more likely to go berserk on prisoners or men who have surrendered. Also it is a fact that men will always defend women comrades in arm it is within our nature. If they where put at the front then they would become a jeopardy to the men and the mission. Even if they themselves behaved perfectly in combat you would find men behaving protectively. Do you wish to rewire men? Or is it the way we are nurtured? Maybe the socialist feminist are bloody right; maybe we should not be raised in the nuclear family but by government nurseries. Maybe it is mainly nurture. But in my view they can go and shove their head up th…
But, I suppose that some men dream of days gone by when a Woman could be legally beaten, kept in the kitchen and not allowed to think or act as a Person.
“Herstory”: women weren’t allowed to think and act. Yes it was men that had it easy working in the mines and dying at forty. Damn those men, damn them to hell. Yeah the easy life! If only we could go back to those days. Those illiterate male masses, those highly intelligent paupers… yeah they went to work at the age of 12 because they knew they could always find a job cause their men. Or what about those farmers.. damn them to. Imagine letting their wife work and their children work to make a living! They were obviously forced! Damn them…why couldn’t they just educate their women. Damn them.
And those men of the mid 19 hundreds what pigs… they could not be happy with just the free milk they wanted the cow. They had to work damn hard to get a job, then purpose after of course going through the father, and then marry. Marriage, the patriarchal institution of great injustice! Then they had to work to provide for the family.. while the women where imprisoned in the house with the people they love most (children). Damn assholes. Damn shame that most of these women demanded it because of being brainwashed by the patriarchy. Oh they also had Christian belief. Religion is a man thing unless there is a goddess. Damn the great injustice!!!
Personally when I was young I expected my mother do defend me and my siblings, and my father to defend us. It is the natural order of things. I admire my father so because he was the man in the house, he made the decisions by discussing it with my mother; yet it always fell to him. He wasn’t an abuser, he was a gentle and intelligent giant. And yes I expected him to defend my mother even if it cost him his life and I expected the same from my mother with us.
We in this country have merry old England to thank for the formation of our current laws, ever think about that?
Huh? “Young” America had over two hundred years to straighten it self out. And also it was thanks to the Old Europeans that America was colonised and its indigenous population destroyed. Ever think about that? Those who rule you are America, and most with a European descend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:57 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, we aren't really that far off from each other. But seriously, don't discount training. Training has much to do with behavior. I wouldn't dream of re-wiring the basic Human being, either Male or Female. But, we are all being manipulated by "society" to behave the way the elite wants us to. That would include both genders. By studying ancient cultures, and specifically primitive cultures that were not tainted by "white mans'" religion we see a truer version of Male/Female roles in society. Men usually were very active in bringing up the Children. Women showed heart, and courage to the extent that they loved their Man, and would take a bullet for them. The nucleous of a Male/Female relationship is the connection between the two, Children then are created by the couple, an extension of the union. Yes, I dream of a real Woman, a total Human Being. Perhaps I shall die before I actually have the privelage of having one as my Partner. But, I will still hold out until I meet one. You are correct about the influence in the U.S. The original investors are still pulling the strings that control our society, either directly, or through the purse strings. What gets me is that the tone of some Men is just as divisionary as the womyn that hate us. If we were to adhere to that philosophy we would be just as bad as them, and we would be forever divided, just what the elite desires, divide and confuse, conquer through words, while making everyone miserable. Yes, we need to applaud any intelligent thought, even if it comes from a Female. Imagine the figurative "balls" of a Woman that decides that what is going on is not right, courage should be lauded specifically if it benifits us in the long run, no? Just my opinion..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What scares you more Davidadelong, that you possibly could hurt a bitch when you kick her ass or because your boots can get damaged?
The feminazis love submissive boys like you, you are the perfectly brainwashed mangina, in short, you are a disgrace to MANkind.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:04 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
You sir, are a throw back. The use of violence when used as nothing less than a last resort is a sign of ignorance. To promote hate is ignorant in and of it self. You would not say those things to me in person, due to the inherent streak of cowardace within you. Perhaps you are an active agent of the oppressive forces that desire to keep the genders seperated to further control? If a woman were to attack me physically I would use force, but I also would use restraint. If you were to physically attack me I believe that I would throw restraint to the winds. By the way, I have been an actual target of those feminazis, and live within one of the strongest areas in the U.S. that promotes the feminazi philosophy. You on the other hand seem to resort to the promotion of violence because either your intellect is lacking, or you are just plain dumb. men like you give the feminazis what they want, a violent ignorant aggressive man that can be manipulated to act out so that they can claim that they are right. Keep up the good work for the real master that you serve, the vagina! I tried being polite, but I guess it only works when a person is intelligent enough to actually debate another instead of just trying to bait them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:09 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
My last comment was directed at Bandiam, no one else. I placed it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:18 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Public apology! Bert actually pushed a button with me, and my anger got me rattled. I mistakenly accused Banadiam for Berts post. for that I am sorry. What I said to Bert I do not apologize for. Anyway, I am done with this line of crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holy crap, you are such a wuss you don't even know who you're responding to.
And about saying things to you in person, you should be happy I'm not in your neighbourhood you wimp, you have no fucking idea who you're dealing with. No need for saying things to you, I'd kick the living crap out of your sissy ass right away.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 09:54 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry if I offended you.
But seriously, don't discount training. Training has much to do with behavior. I wouldn't dream of re-wiring the basic Human being, either Male or Female. But, we are all being manipulated by "society" to behave the way the elite wants us to.
This I agree with you totally. Feminism is part of the elite’s game. Divide and conquer and all that. Poor men and women since time memorial have worked hand in hand, while the aristocracy ruled over them, sometimes justly but usually unjustly.
By studying ancient cultures, and specifically primitive cultures that were not tainted by "white mans'" religion we see a truer version of Male/Female roles in society.
Most societies men were the hunters women the nurtures. It is the most natural of things. Ever watched a documentary on current living Amazonian tribes, or African desert tribes or any other “heathen” tribes . You would find that the men & women play different spheres and yet equal important roles. White men have not corrupted them, and the men did play with their children. Most men do… or use to. Now days a man is afraid to touch a child in public because of the stares he gets. Part of our training.
'I lost my job because I was a man playing with children'
We have a responsibility to look out for all children - not just our own
I have little love for feminism and I would like to see it dead. Because not only is it unjust to men (& women) but it is also destroying our sons and daughters future happiness. Look at our streets, boys are louts and girls are sluts. Society has become disgustingly hedonistic. Individualism has become the main focus… me me me. Yes it may sound a bit Right... but I don’t give a shit where the truth comes from. I applaud it if it came from a woman, man, child or a bloody parrot. If it is true its true.
I do not think we can win this unless we have women on our side. They are our other half...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:13 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Baniadam, I am sorry, I got a little confused there, I thought that Bert was you, and for that I am truel sorry! I do not apoligize for the answer to Bert, but it was in response to his direct assault on me. You Sir, and I agree on enough to agree to get along, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 02:09 PM January 14th, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
No problems mate.
The best way to deal with overly offensive slur is to ignore it. Unless you want to have fun... then knock yourself out. :-P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 01:19 AM January 15th, 2006 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
'But, I suppose that some men dream of days gone by when a Woman could be legally beaten,...'
Is this referring to the 'rule-of-thumb'? Please elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Ragtime on 12:31 AM January 16th, 2006 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
brotherskeeper wrote, "Is this referring to the 'rule-of-thumb'? Please elaborate."
The 'rule-of-thumb' is a myth of 'herstery,' a bit of feminist-created anti-male propoganda.
Here's an article on the subject:
~~~~~~~~~~
The "Rule of Thumb for Wife-Beating" Hoax
Feminists often make that claim that the "rule of thumb" used to mean that it was legal to beat your wife with a rod, so long as that rod were no thicker than the husband's thumb. Thus, one constantly runs into assertions like this:
someone might want to be careful using "rule of thumb" in a sarcastic
way. my criminal law teacher at UCLA noted that rule of thumb started
in England for punishing wives who cheated on their husbands. the rule
was that the rod used to beat them could not be thicker than one's
thumb(!).
However, Christina Hoff Sommers documents how the link between the phrase "rule of thumb" and wifebeating is a feminist-inspired myth of recent vintage. In her book "Who Stole Feminism" (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994, p. 203) Sommers writes:
...The 'rule of thumb' story is an example of revisionist history
that feminists happily fell into believing. It reinforces their
perspective on society, and they tell it as a way of winning converts
to their angry creed...
The 'rule of thumb', however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. It is not to be found in William Blackstone's treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.
That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science.
According to Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock, "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs." Hiscock adds that the phrase came into metaphorical use by the late seventeenth century. Hiscock could not track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, but he believes it is an example of 'modern folklore' and compares it to other 'back-formed explanations.' such as the claim asparagus comes from 'sparrow-grass' or that 'ring around the rosy' is about the plague.
We shall see that Hiscock's hunch was correct, but we must begin by exonerating William Blackstone (1723-1780), the Englishman who codified centuries of legal customs and practices into the elegant and clearly organized tome known as Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Commentaries, a classic of legal literature, became the basis for the development of American law. The so-called rule of thumb as a guideline for wife-beating does not occur in Blackstone's compendium, although he does refer to an ancient law that permitted "domestic chastisement"....
In America, there have been laws against wife/husband beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, spouse-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":
It has often been claimed that wife/husband-beating in
nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though,
several states passed statutes legally prohibiting
wife/husband-beating; and at least one statute even predates
the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony
prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states:
"No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on
penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense,
or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."
[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife/husband-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife/husband-beating has been considered a sin comparable to to thievery or adultery. Religious groups -- especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists -- punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife/husband-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.
Just how did the false account originate, and how did it achieve authority and currency? As with many myths, there is a small core of fact surrounded by an accretion of error. In the course of rendering rulings on cases before them, two Southern judges had alluded to an 'ancient law' according to which a man could beat his wife as long as the implement was not wider than his thumb. The judges, one from North Carolina and one from Mississippi, did not accept the authority of the 'ancient law.' The North Carolina judge referred to it as 'barbarism,' and both judges found the husband in the case in question guilty of wife abuse. Nevertheless, their rulings seemed to tolerate the notion that men had a measure of latitude in physically chastising their wives. Fortunately, as Pleck takes pains to remind us, they were not representative of judicial opinion in the rest of the country.
In 1976, Del Martin, a coordinator of the N.O.W. Task Force on Battered Women, came across a reference to the two judges and their remarks. Neither judge had used the phrase "rule of thumb," but a thumb had been mentioned, and Ms. Martin took note of it:
Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly
permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However, certain
restrictions did exist... For instance, the common-law doctrine had
been modified to allow the husband "the right to whip his wife,
provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb" -- a rule
of thumb, so to speak.
Ms. Martin had not claimed that the term "rule of thumb" originated from common law. Before long, however, the "ancient law" alluded to by two obscure Southern judges was being treated as an unchallenged principle of both British and American law, and journalists and academics alike were bandying the notion about. Feminist Terry Davidson, in an article entitled "Wife Beating: A Recurring Phenomenon Throughout History," claims that "one of the reasons nineteenth century British wives were dealt with so harshly by their husbands and by their legal system was the 'rule of thumb'" and castigates Blackstone himself. "Blackstone saw nothing unreasonable about the wife-beating law. In fact, he believed it to be quite moderate."
These interpretive errors were given added authority by a group of scholars and lawyers who, in 1982, prepared a report on wife abuse for the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice -- A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights_. On the second page, they note: "American law is built upon the British common law that condoned wife beating and even prescribed the weapon to be used. This 'rule of thumb' stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with a 'rod not thicker than his thumb.'" It went on to speak of Blackstone as the jurist who "greatly influenced the making of the law in the American colonies [and who] commented on the 'rule of thumb,'" justifying the rule by noting that "the law thought it reasonable to intrust [the husband] with this power of... chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children."
The publication of the report established the feminist fable about the origins of the term in popular lore, and the misogyny of Blackstone and "our law" as "fact." Misstatements about the "rule of thumb" still appear in the popular press.
That same 1993 Time magazine article that popularized the nonexistent March of Dimes study on domestic violence and birth defects and reported that "between 22% and 35% of all visits by females to emergency rooms are for injuries from domestic assaults" also cited new York University law professor Holly Maguigan: "We talk about the notion of the rule of thumb, forgetting that it had to do with the restriction on a man's right to use a weapon against his wife: he couldn't use a rod that was larger than his thumb." Professor Maguigan's law students would do well to check their Blackstone.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 11:44 AM January 16th, 2006 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Ragtime! That's precisely what I was trolling for. Was hoping the original poster would re-think their post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:14 PM January 13th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Just a question to the 'men': Would you allow a girlfriend to take a bullet for you?"
The idea behind love is that BOTH people would take a bullet for the other one. It's supposed to be mutual.
"What is the men’s movement about? Can someone PLEASE tell me exactly what it is! Is it about correcting the fallacies of feminism and ultimately destroying it or is it about trying to get the same absurd laws applied to women as well as men, so we can both get screwed evenly? Are we bloody different or are we the same as the feminist claim."
Yeah, we're a lot more the same than we are different. This is an MRA-friendly idea. Those who swear that men are from Mars and women are from Venus are the ones -- unwittingly or otherwise -- screwing men (and women) over. Feminism isn't our enemy; MISANDRY is. And misandry can be practiced by feminists and non-feminists alike...just as pro-male attitudes can be displayed by feminists and non-feminists alike.
You seem to believe that women like Charen and O'Bierne are our friends when they say, "Don't worry, boys! We still think you should open the door for us, buy us dinner, and give up your seat on the bus for us! We still think that only YOU should get your heads blown off on the battlefield! We're not like those silly FEMINISTS who want the sexes to be equal!"
You can go on believing that those women have our best interests at heart, but you'll be drinking the poisoned Kool-Aid if you do.
Hope this answers your question.
boy genteel
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 09:17 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism is not our enemy.. misandry is. The sad thing is feminism was a misandrist movement to begin with and still is. The second wave feminism was the first and true feminism, the first wasn’t. They were a women’s movement. So yes feminist are my enemy… as to the new independent feminist and their ilk that are not so misandrist, they are a new breed.
And yes we have many similarities but we also have a lot of differences. I do not want to brush out those differences to make us appear equal when we clearly aren’t anything of the sort. Those differences are pertinent to the way we interact with each other, to the way laws should be applied to achieve a harmonies nature. The laws should not dissolve these differences but highlight them, so we can be more considerate of one another. Feminism wants to destroy these differences by putting men at a disadvantage or women on a pedestal.
“You can go on believing that those women have our best interests at heart, but you'll be drinking the poisoned Kool-Aid if you do.”
Hmmm Kool-Aid…
Read my reply here
The Right
BTW: Just in case the link does clarify it enough.. I don’t think this woman (O’Beirne) gives a damn about men. But that just me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by amperro on 10:55 PM January 13th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I do not want to see ANY women killed or maimed in combat, just as I do not want to see any MEN killed or maimed in combat. What I have a problem with the notion that a man's life is absolutely worthless compared to the life of a woman. We have lost over 2200 Americans in Iraq, and the Right doesn't care except when the deaths are women.
Lest you think I am behaving like a pussy, I did a four year stint in the US Army, which included a stint with a mechanized infantry unit in Korea.
I truly HATE to have to use that as a qualifier, but I refuse to be called a pussy because I point out a gross injustice against men. And, no, I most certainly do NOT want an androgynous society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 08:50 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
The Right doesn't care. I know that.
It never cared about the soldiers in the last century and I doubt it cares about them now. I think the Americans should realise that by now. Same goes for our Tony Blair and his cronies.
And what about the Iraqis? What about them? Do you care for them?; the people that we, the Brits and Americans, supposed to have liberated.
Lest you think I am behaving like a pussy
It is up to you to judge for yourself. Personally my answer is no as I do not know you well enough. :P
Seriously the answer is no… don’t take my offensive comments to heart.
We have lost over 2200 Americans in Iraq, and the Right doesn't care except when the deaths are women.
The Right does not care about the women and men. They want the women out because they don't believe women belong there. And the MEN on this board should realise that. They believe the women place should not be in the army because it hampers the Armies effectiveness. Also it is less efficient money wise. Personally I agree, but unlike them I do actually care for what is going on Iraq, and I do not believe in sending men as fodder to serve the big corporations and Bankers interests.
As to them pointing out the women fatalities because it serves their interests better. God forbid they mention the number of men maimed and killed… that would put people off the war.
Does the Right or Left for that matter care for its own population... the 35+ million living on or below the poverty line in the richest country in the world? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:01 AM January 16th, 2006 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
I have said before, and will again, that either side is nothing more than the first or second act of the largest dog and pony show in history. We, "the taxpayers" are not only paying for the show, but we are charged to see the finished product! I am glad to see someone else speaking something other than dogma. Two party system, when the two parties are partying on us! "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baniadam wrote: "What is the men’s movement about? Can someone PLEASE tell me exactly what it is!"
I would say, read the posts on this site and you know what the men's movement is about. Instead of doing what should be done, kicking fiminazi asses, they can't even agree whether they're anti-feminazi or pro-feminazi.
I'm sorry chaps, all I've seen from the men's movement so far is that most of its members act like a bunch of wussies. For example, most of you adore broads like Charen and O'Beirne as if they were some kind of goddesses just because they write a few words against feminazism. Did you ever ask yourself how these broads got in the position they are in now? They got there because of feminazism goddammit, they didn't give a rat's ass about men's issues while they were climbing the ladder. And now they're at the top they want to play friends with men. To hell with them, what those broads need is a bullwhip striking their asses.
As long as the men's movement keeps showing leniency for feminazis nothing will change. The men's movement should do only one thing, kick their fat lazy asses.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 08:55 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Read my reply here:
The Right
And for your info I don't give a rat arse for O'Beirne or any other feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 06:56 PM January 13th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"Apparently, it's not just the feminists that are anti-male. Even the anti-feminists like Charen and O'Beirne are anti-male!"
This is what I've been saying. Misandrists come in all stripes. I'd feel much safer with a feminist who at least valued my life as much as a woman's life than I would with Charen, who only considers it a tragedy when women die.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:24 PM January 15th, 2006 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
There are now over 300 reader reviews of Kate O'Beirne's book, (Women Who Make the World Worse...) and they provide a very interesting peephole into the utter and frightening polarization of opinion in our lovely gender wars.
There's an almost comic bit of soap opera being played out, because 90% of the reviews are negative, and mostly by people who have not actually read it, who rank the book consistently "1 star."
Then there is the other 10% positive reviews, ranking the book almost universally "5 stars."
The "reviews of the reviews" ask whether you found a particular review "helpful," and here you'll find that 90% of the negative reviews are rated as helpful; while 10% of the positive reviews are rated similarly.
This is clearly an orchestrated campaign by feminists to slant amazon's ranking of the book.
Interestingly, the book is currently somewhere around 40th most popular in sales, though it's Reader Rating is barely above 1-star.
There's a Ph.D. thesis to be had here, if any hungry grad students in sociology or women's studies are up for the investigative work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:05 PM January 15th, 2006 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies for piggy-backing on my own post, but the plot (and comedy) thickens ----
Check out the self-congratulatory neofemimarxists at --
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_firedog lake_archive.html#113721755729376469
(Excerpt) -- "First of all I want to thank everyone who aided in the sacking of Kate O'Beirne's book Women Who Make the World Worse over at Amazon. The overall book review is at 1.5 stars, and for reasons I have no clue about Amazon has now promoted the General's review -- which has close to 4,000 votes -- to the Spotlight review."
Tragically, the book is currently in the Top 50 for actual sales.
Proving, once again, Marxists are terrible at math!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:13 PM January 13th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't all that bad Folks. If I were talking about the injustices of a mercenary force at war and the fatalities as well as the deformaties caused by said unjust war, and I was speaking to Men, I would stress Men. I don't believe we would do ourselves justice by attacking Friends, and these two Women are our Friends. Just my opinion Folks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zerostress on 09:14 PM January 13th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I am very much in favor of dishing out blame to a woman who hates men or who deserve it.
I do not think though that this writer should be critized because she failed to number correctly the number and gender of dead in Irak.
I think she should be comnended for her article, not critized because she did not acknowledged the gender of every single persons that got killed in Irak.
If we do not give to women praise for what they are doing right, we are not much better than those we hate. This is a danger we should all keep in mind, unless we become what we hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 09:06 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
SCORES of women have been killed and wounded in Iraq!! Is that REALLY worse than the THOUSANDS of MEN killed and wounded in Iraq? Apparently, it's not just the feminists that are anti-male. Even the anti-feminists like Charen and O'Beirne are anti-male!"
The article did not display the characteristic journalistic tendency to "efface the male." Scholar Adam Jones has written extensively on the tendency in journalism to omit mention of the gender of male victims of war violence; male victims are typically identified by some characteristic other than gender (e.g., Bosnian Serbs); on the other hand, female victims receive special emphasis from reporters as females, whose individual stories are worth telling. Too few MRAs are willing to cite Adam Jones, even after they've read his work. Perhaps it will take seven or eight exposures to the work of Adam Jones, after which it will almost begin to sink in to the wounded MRA mind that, "yes, I believe Adam Jones is onto something. I'm beginning to see it, dimly."
To complain that the article fails to make the requisite numerical comparison between the number of military women killed in combat (scores) and the number of men killed in combat (several orders of magnitide higher) completely misses the point the author was making: namely, that feminism has unnecessarily placed women in harms way. Even the statement that women killed in combat are often mothers who leave children behind does not necessarily imply that the author believes that they are more valuable to their families than fathers killed in combat. But Hell hath no fury like a whiney MRA scorned, it appears. The article left nothing for MRAs to bitch about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 10:06 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
To complain that the article fails to make the requisite numerical comparison between the number of military women killed in combat (scores) and the number of men killed in combat (several orders of magnitide higher) completely misses the point the author was making: namely, that feminism has unnecessarily placed women in harms way. Even the statement that women killed in combat are often mothers who leave children behind does not necessarily imply that the author believes that they are more valuable to their families than fathers killed in combat. But Hell hath no fury like a whiney MRA scorned, it appears. The article left nothing for MRAs to bitch about.
Snap! Well said mate.
The men have become as blind and irrational as the feminists... unable to comprehend the articles stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 10:12 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"I mourn the passing of your "
I just read your Subject... very funny.
LOL. Even if it was directed at me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:22 AM January 14th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Baniadam, just to make sure you know, I was responding to Berts attack on me, not you. I agree with a lot that you say. I will not blame my mistake on anything, other than it was a mistake. Sorry for the confusion, and the fact that you did not deserve my ire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 01:05 PM January 15th, 2006 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Jone's Gendercide Watch web site is quite amazing if you want to be confronted with the facts.... basically that in most all modern world conflicts and wars, the vast majority of those targeted for extermination have been men and boys.
I found the descriptions of what is going on in Columbia, our near and dear neighbor just to the south, very compelling.
----
"As hinted in these accounts, the sheer savagery of the killings in Colombia is an important element of the horror.
"Often in Colombia, the bodies of individuals who have been arbitrarily detained are mutilated in a variety of ways meant to maximize terror: with machetes, chain saws, acid, and even surgical instruments." (Human Rights Watch, War Without Quarter.)
All sides in the Colombian conflict have increasingly targeted male youths and even children for impressment into military ranks. The gendering and possibly gendercidal character of the recruitment of child soldiers is discussed elsewhere on this site."
http://www.gendercide.org/case_colombia.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 07:35 PM January 14th, 2006 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
A friend of mine suggested the kind of 'equality' sought by people like her be termed 'shequality' - equality as it assists women but is utterly blind to how it may affect men or how inequalities affect men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:55 AM January 15th, 2006 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
True.
And apparently "Shequality" doesn't care how it effects children, either. Especially male children.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Daoistfire on 05:17 AM January 15th, 2006 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
They got mass about the numbers ust because the world's media is on feminist's hand, Which affect anyone who want to know the truth.
I don't think anyone should be over reactive before we lose anymore potential(if not mutual) friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 05:24 PM January 15th, 2006 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
With the post of Roy, we some recognition of the crucial importance, for mens rights activists, of the scholarly work of Adam Jones on the universal lack of mention of the gender of male victims of violence in journalism and academic literature, and the universal emphasis and concern with the gender of female victims of violence. Toward the requisite seven or eight exposures to new ideas needed before they become internalized, used and cited, I offer the following excerpts, with links, to the work of Adam Jones. Men's Rights Activists should not consider themselves even informed unless they read and understand this work (it's permitted to consider yourself an uninformed, opinionated crybaby if you haven't bothered to read Adam Jones after you've found out about his work and its relevance to MRAs, however). MRAs can disagree (although probably few will), but they have a responsibility to themselves and the men who died before them to find out the extent to which their gender has been targeted for violence, while the emphasis on gender in journalism and the academic literature has focused essentially on female victims of violence.
On the literature of genocide and the feminist taboo.
It is remarkable, though, how invisible or barely-visible the gender variable remains in this emerging literature, at least as far as non-combatant males are concerned. One is put in the position of piecing together disconnected fragments. Kuper, in his field-defining work, mentions in passing that "While unarmed men seem fair game, the killing of women and children arouses general revulsion"; but it is a specific reference to the Northern Ireland conflict, which has not (in Kuper's view and others') reached a genocidal scale.(48) The obfuscation of the variable in the wider literature may reflect the fact that it is non-combatant males who tend overwhelmingly to be the victims of gender-selective mass killing, and this remains a powerful taboo in the feminist-dominated discussion of gender.
From Gendercide and Genocide
by Adam Jones, Ph.D. Journal of Genocide Research, 2: 2 (June 2000), pp. 185-211
From the Introduction to The Globe and Males
The Other Side of Gender Bias
in Canada's National Newspaper
by Adam Jones
One of the central accomplishments of the women's movement over the last two decades has been to draw media attention to the physical suffering and institutionalized victimization of women in North American society. In Canada, the aftermath of Marc Lépine's terrorist rampage at the University of Montreal accelerated the nationwide flurry of analysis concerning the issue of violence against women, which was generally held to be the relevant context for Lépine's actions.
The other side of human suffering and victimization in Canadian society has, unfortunately, passed almost unnoticed by mainstream media. Aspects of suffering which could be considered largely or specifically "male" have tended to be ignored, dismissed, or distorted. This has served to highlight the broad range of female victimization experiences - an important and worthy subject. But it has also denigrated or de-emphasized the male side, which in any humane and objective value system ought to be accorded every bit as much consideration and concern.
This phenomenon does not seem to be the result of a "boomerang" effect in media coverage. We are not dealing here with matters which have been male preserves in the past - something which might justify greater attention to the female side to help redress the balance. Rather, in this respect, the male experience has never been a matter for social concern as such, for reasons that will be examined later.
All this suggests an anti-male bias, unfashionable though such a concept may be to progressive minds. To clarify some essential features of this bias, I propose to examine a series of articles from Canada's self-proclaimed "National Newspaper," the Toronto Globe and Mail. The articles were published between March 10 and June 15 1990. They constitute part (but only part) of the Globe's wide-ranging analysis of social issues, including "women's issues" - that is, issues and social problems which are allegedly indicative (predominantly or exclusively) of the female experience in our society.
From adamjones.freeservers.com.
Abstract from Effacing the Male
The Kosovo war of 1999 offered an excellent opportunity to analyze the representation of gender and violent victimization in the mass media. The present article focuses on the motif of "gendercide," or gender-selective mass killing -- in this case, of "battle-age" ethnic-Albanian men. A broad sample of media commentary is presented to demonstrate that "unworthy" male victims tend to be marginalized or ignored entirely in mass-media coverage. A trio of common marginalization strategies is discussed, and a theoretical framework of "first-order," "second-order," and "third-order" gendering is proposed to clarify the deficit in coverage. This deficit is then contrasted with the attention given to the victimization experiences of "worthy" victims, such as women, children, and the elderly. Finally, the small handful of responsible and insightful media reports on gender-selective atrocities against Kosovar men is evaluated for the alternative it may offer to "effacing the male" from coverage of war and violence.
From Effacing the Male:
Gender, Misrepresentation, and Exclusion
in the Kosovo War by Adam Jones, Ph.D.
Published in Transitions: The Journal of Men's Perspectives, 21: 1-3 (2001).
The whining, self-indulgent crybabies, who believe that the statement of Mona Charen is worth their heroic blubbering should read Adam Jones for something worth crying about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jabes1966 on 10:43 PM January 15th, 2006 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with the initial statement about Mona Charen's article. While it may seem like more of the same anti-male attitude that she highlights the scores of female deaths to end female combat roles, I think she is stating a pro-male role of the warrior-hero or noble-warrior or warrior-savior whatever you want to call it.
Many people in the men's movement want women out of combat roles (and maybe the military all together). I believe that men SHOULD be the ones risking there necks in combat. The crappy part is that the liberal media never covers these brave heros. Like the soldier who jumped on the grenade to save an Iragi girl. Now that's a hero! Not that silly girl (Jessica Lynch) who got captured & never fired one bullet.
As long as she advocates removing female combat roles, I'm not going to get my hackles up to far about her methods. No one ever seems to mention in the mainstream media that ALL of the men in Lynch's unit were killed in action! These men are living proof of what army/marine brass have been saying all along: #1 women aren't strong enough to pull wounded out, #2 men will fight to the last man to protect women in the unit (when common sense would dictate surrender leading to fruitless deaths), #3 it's cripplingly demoralizing for a man to see a woman die a violent death. The funniest thing of all is that Bush was so scared at kissing his re-election goodbye (due to a female prisoner being tortured on Al-jazera) that he mobilized some 300 special ops/marines/navy seals to rescue her. How can the army sustain such a huge backward move in manpower for every female soldier?
Thanks feminazi's for a screwed up world!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 11:59 PM January 15th, 2006 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"No one ever seems to mention in the mainstream media that ALL of the men in Lynch's unit were killed in action!"
But that's my point. Charen et al consider it the DUTY of men to fight (and in some cases DIE) in war, whereas a woman doing so is a huge story.
I won't go as far as to say that Lynch isn't a hero/isn't brave. But men by the thousands die and their deaths are more romanticized than mourned.
"These men are living proof of what army/marine brass have been saying all along: #1 women aren't strong enough to pull wounded out, #2 men will fight to the last man to protect women in the unit (when common sense would dictate surrender leading to fruitless deaths), #3 it's cripplingly demoralizing for a man to see a woman die a violent death."
We should be equally hurt/demoralized to see ANY human being killed. See, that's my point. It's considered "rough" for a man to see his fellow male soldier suffer a bullet through the brain, but "cripplingly demoralizing" when the same happens to a woman. I don't want to see the woman get shot, either, but is the man's life worth any less?
bg
Men's Rights = Women's Rights = Human Rights
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 12:40 AM January 16th, 2006 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the sad truth.
In war, men will die.
They will die trying to protect whatever silly ideology they have been convinced they have to die for...
And, as always, women and children will be on their minds when they perform the ultimate sacrifice.
The military now is grappling with an obvious truth.
Women in combat-forward operations are a liability.
They provide no strategic advantage.
They are baggage.
They are, worse.... baggage that needs to be protected.
The Israeli army learned this lesson 20 years ago.
No more female combat "soldiers."
When will the U.S. D.O.D. learn this ancient principle?
Men will willingly die.
But why ask them to die for a foolish, non-strategic ideal?
Women should never be in any army.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roger on 09:18 AM January 16th, 2006 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
I think Roy has hit a lot of nails on the head here. Of course, it's easy to say that, in the name of "fairness," women should share the dangers on the battlefield if they are going to insist on equality during times of peace. But this isn't a parlor debate; we're talking about the strength of our military, and our ability to defend ourselves. A feminized fighting machine is a contradiction in terms, and we shouldn't wish for it just to get even with the feminists, to score debating points. I believe that it is natural for males to assume the major role in the protecting professions, because I believe that we are simply "hard-wired" for that. An average man can be turned into a good soldier with training, but it is the extremely exceptional woman who is really fit for soldiering.
Look at human cultures across the world and throughout history. Has there been even one in which women assumed an equal role in defense? No, and that's because it would go against human nature. Feminists are the ones who like to go against human nature, and we ought not to ape them just to get even.
If a man sees a woman, even a stranger, in distress, his gut-level reaction is to help her. You can dismiss that as self-defeating chivalry if you like, but I believe that such a reaction goes deeper than cultural conditioning. If a woman sees a man who is a stranger in distress, it will not be her gut-level reaction to help him. She might, if it presents no danger to her. This is more than cultural conditioning; when you think about it, such responses make evolutionary sense. So, whether we like it or not, protecting the tribe is primarily a male job, and trying to keep it that way is not just a matter of "chivalry."
Speaking for myself, I don't mind assuming that burden as long as women appreciate it and don't put me down for insisting that it's my role. In a world where men are honored for assuming that role, they will naturally assume it (and give up their seats on life boats). But if women continue to display nothing but venomous hatret toward us, I'm afraid that men will more and more see women in distress as merely fish without bicycles. They will take the seats in the life boats, and let those "fish" go to the bottom of the sea. But I suspect that, in such a world, both men and women will be worse off in the long run.
(Only on one point to I disagree with Roy: I think that there is a place for women in the military, but it's in ancillary roles, not in combat ones.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 03:21 PM January 16th, 2006 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
If a man sees a woman, even a stranger, in distress, his gut-level reaction is to help her. You can dismiss that as self-defeating chivalry if you like, but I believe that such a reaction goes deeper than cultural conditioning. If a woman sees a man who is a stranger in distress, it will not be her gut-level reaction to help him. She might, if it presents no danger to her. This is more than cultural conditioning; when you think about it, such responses make evolutionary sense. So, whether we like it or not, protecting the tribe is primarily a male job, and trying to keep it that way is not just a matter of "chivalry."
In most societies there is a moral obligation to assist someone in great need when you are in a unique position to do so at little or no cost to yourself. Any evolutionary pressures on women to resist helping men in such situations is hardly an excuse..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:47 PM January 16th, 2006 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Roger is 100% correct.
The Israelis did not ban women from their (mandatory) military service.
They in fact restructured things so that women in non-combat roles could make major contributions to their forces.
What's instructive for the U.S. D.O.D., which they already realize (but will not admit for P.C. reasons...), is that all these Iraq "non-combat co-mingled" rhetorical BS charades are failing 100%.
Anytime you carry/insert/impose a female into a combat theatre, that's a male soldier who can't do his primary job.
He is not a babysitter.
He is a killer. One with trained finesse and focus.
The two roles mix very poorly, and have accounted for the deaths of too many soldiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 11:04 AM January 20th, 2006 EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
"Anytime you carry/insert/impose a female into a combat theatre, that's a male soldier who can't do his primary job. He is not a babysitter. He is a killer. One with trained finesse and focus. The two roles mix very poorly, and have accounted for the deaths of too many soldiers."
So...who's saying the male soldiers need to babysit the female soldiers? They're all there to do the same job.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:59 AM January 18th, 2006 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
A while ago I made a few posts on another topic in which I said that, unlike men, women have no higher values. I qualified this by saying that women are not held to the consequences of higher values, which means that higher values in women are nothing but an affectation. I think this is the underlying truth behind many of these 'difficult' areas of 'equality', including the issues of chivalry and women in the military. I also think it makes a nonsense of feminist demands for equality, because unless women are held to the consequences of higher values they can only ever play at being full citizens. Look at any area of the criminal justice system that feminists have had their hands on and you'll see this model played out again and again.
One of the signs of women's fake higher values is a lack of physical consequences. Instead, women's internal emotional state is put forward in place of external physical consequences. I actually find this quite offensive. The idea of women 'appreciating' what men do, when in fact those men are risking their lives, strikes me as ridiculous - as if a man's life weighs in the balance the same as a woman's internal emotional state. That this is accepted at any level illustrates that something very serious is wrong. The men's movements lack of intellectual underpinning means issues such as this are never addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 02:38 PM January 18th, 2006 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of women 'appreciating' what men do, when in fact those men are risking their lives, strikes me as ridiculous - as if a man's life weighs in the balance the same as a woman's internal emotional state. That this is accepted at any level illustrates that something very serious is wrong. The men's movements lack of intellectual underpinning means issues such as this are never addressed.
Of course this "appreciation" is condescending. Who needs it? No one should risk their lives because it's merely appreciated. Even if it were, the reason to do it is because it is some sort of duty, because your job requires it, or because you do it for its own sake. Generally speaking, men should pursue work for its own sake, and never to impress potential mates. But there are Wimps Rights Activists (WRAs -- note the upside-down M) who find it gut wrenching if a woman is killed next to them, but shrug off the same violence if the victim is a man, and use their own internal emotional state as a reason to exclude women from combat. In addition, they don't mind defending them, as long as their efforts are "appreciated." This is characteristic of what Doc Love calls "Wimpus Americanus." The choice is simple: MRAs can have "appreciation" or they can have reform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 12:32 AM January 16th, 2006 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
#3 it's cripplingly demoralizing for a man to see a woman die a violent death.
Wimpus Americanus at work. This traditional wimpass chivalry will be the death of the men's movement. Why can't you focus on equal rights, instead of insisting that women follow traditional roles? They aren't going to. If they want to fight, let them. If you think women's lives are worth more than men's, then you are a feminist, whether you think you are or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 04:05 PM January 16th, 2006 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
I've found this particular exchange to be, for the most part, a very important one. The most important point highlighted is the split over how MRAs should respond to the situation as it exists. To wit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 04:31 PM January 16th, 2006 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, let's try this again.
I've found this particular exchange to be, for the most part, a very important one. The most important point highlighted is the split over how MRAs should respond to the situation as it exists. To wit, which of the following options should MRAs pursue?
1. Enforcing REAL egalitarianism (not the current 'her choice, his responsibility'). i.e., force women into the miltary and treat them the same as men -- no exceptions, enforce men's entrance into women's sporting leagues, getting rid of women's affirmative action, equal punishment under the law, ad infinitum.
OR
2. Fashioning society, the military, law, academia, etc. around the differences in the sexes.
I honesty don't know which side I fall on. I do know that the current state of affairs is untenable. A partial solution, I believe, would center around returning to a much reduced governmental role. The real free market usually seems to sort these issues out, over time, in an optimal fashion. Obviously this wouldn't address the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 08:43 PM January 16th, 2006 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Iv'e got two sons in the War. One in Afghanistan Army Special Ops Warrior, his Brother a Marine on his third combat tour. The Miltary is not a civilian Business Enterprise. It is all about accomplishing the mission. Women are getting pregnant deliberately to get out of going, getting Pregers in Country to leave early, and leaving the Mission for others. We have some incredibly BRAVE WOMEN. Who are a real credit to our Nation. Malign them in my presence and we will fight.
But the problem is too many Women are using this to subsidize their life at Tax payers expense. The
DOD should do more with respect to proper and advanced Body Armour, changing the .223 to .270. Replacing the 9 mm with .357 SIG or .45 ACP.
Equality in the genders is going to compromise the Mission. Tougher training, better armour plated and designed vehicles and Leadership is more important. Our Warriors feel very strongly this is
a noble cause. They are committed to victory. The rest is posturing.
For an incountry perspective check out Soldiers For The Truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 02:55 AM January 17th, 2006 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in favor of a case-by-case analysis of each problem. Some of the questions are morally unresolvalble, and in those cases I believe that government intervention is needed. Questions that cannot be resolved by common morality are handled by transferring them to the legal and political system; conservatives may miss the point that most moral philosophers have to supplement their moral philosophy with a political philosophy to handle questions that common morality cannot resolve. Keeping the government from fulfilling its role in this regard on the belief that government should be concerned with defense and nothing else is counterproductive.
Abortion is morally unresolvable; it may be that ideoological differences on which gender is the appropriate target of violence adds to the contentiousness of the question of military copmbat service. If the reason for excluding women in combat is that on average they are ineffective in comabt, then this is valid; the opinion that their lives are more valuable than mens lives is not a valid reason.
I remember reading an article (that I cannot locate now) about the plight of women in nuclear war. The woman author found it deplorable that nuclear war did not discriminate among civilian targets: with the advent of global thermonuclear war, women were now at the same risk as men, and therefore at greater risk than ever of becoming war casualties. This is an example of the thinking that women's lives are worth more. Do we then provide civil defense for women only?
So in arguing that women should be excluded from battle, one has to be careful about chivalrous attitudes. It's chivalrous to want to exclude women from combat if one believes their lives are worth more, or on account of some evolutionary predisposition--such things can be civilized to some extent, though it is an open question as to what extent, and so far I haven't seen anyone adduce scientific evidence in favor of such a predisposition; it seems to me that this is an ideologically held belief. On the other hand, referring to empirical evidence that coed armies are sufficiently less effective than all male forces as to substantially weaken a nation's military capability is not a statement that womens' lives are worth more. It's not a chivalrous statement. I would think the road of chivalry is a slippery slope MRAs would do well to avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:12 PM January 17th, 2006 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
My stated opinion that NO WOMEN SHOULD EVER BE IN A COMBAT-FORWARD POSITION has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of silly Chivalry.
I'll be happy to endorse all-women armies when women decide to go to war for something other than their own convenience.
Women in combat are a liability.
They fight little, but must be protected much.
(And, let's not get into the map-reading tragedy that made Lynddie England a millionaire...)
There is no rational excuse for sacrificing actual male soldiers to protect the girlie GI Janes just because they want to do two years and get an administrative safe job back stateside and a college scholarship.
Are there courageous female warriors?
Yes?
And every one of those diabolically masculine girls is even more dangerous for their male comrade's prospects of longevity.
The only thing more lethal for a man in combat than a female civilian who needs protection is a female wearing his same uniform who never passed the same strength-and-agility tests he had to, and to be under fire and watching a nightmare happening before his eyes....
Prove that I'm incorrect. Data, from D.O.D., please.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 12:08 AM January 18th, 2006 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Not to be picky, but to clarify your point, I believe it was Jessica Lynch on the 'map' incident, not Lyndie England.
The incident you refer to certainly highlighted the ugliness of the Diane-Sawyer hype, what with one male soldier being bayoneted to death after running out of ammo, and Pvt. Miller taking out a mortar emplacement (pounding the chamber of his jammed M-16 closed with a rock!). Note that basically nobody knows who these two soldiers were/are, and their families are very angry about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jabes1966 on 10:05 PM January 19th, 2006 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
The way I see it is this. I understand the frustration some of you feel about certain members stating that women should not be in a military high-risk role. If they want the risk let 'em take it, etc.. but the women will NOT be the ones to pay the price! It will be the Male soldiers around them!
Saying women should be forced into service with cries of "There's equality for you baby!" is a mind-set cut from the same cloth as giving more leg-ups & grants & affirmitive action to female engineering & physics students. Or the fems trying to pass laws stating that 50% of CEO's have to be female. It's blandishing over the fact that there are very important & huge differences in the sexes! What you're describing is a genderless society same as any feminazi, and if this vision comes to pass everyone will be the worse for it. BIG TIME!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "Columnist Mona Charen