In response to:

The Women's Annihilation Movement

mhood175 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 8:37 AM
What you people fail to realize is that women want to give what they can in order to defend their country,too. Women have faught successfully alongside men in other countries. They know the risk. They are willing to take that risk. True,they cannot do EVERYTHING a man can do just because of the upper body strength,BUT they CAN contribute and that is what they are asking for - a chance to contribute to this nation! Women faught along with the settlers in the pioneer days, they fight in Israel and other countries, they are outstanding fighter pilots in THIS country and now want to be a part of our military and contribute where they can, which, could relieve a man for a duty where he is needed more! I don't understand why you people are
amirvish Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 12:08 PM
You're wrong. If it was about wanting to do the best to defend their country, military feminists would never have gone along with all the lowered and separate standards that currently apply to all military positions open to both sexes. Their actual achievements have been vastly overstated and in some cases manufactured by the lower standards. Israel abandoned coed long ago and it is your history that is flawed when you say pioneer women actively fought alongside the men. The best contribution women can make to national defense is by mostly staying out of it. This is all about military feminists - officers mostly - wanting to validate themselves because they cannot accept their innate inferiority relative to men.
mhood175 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 11:20 PM
You egotistical nutballs are pathetic. You are THREATENED by a woman being in combat! Holy cow, what low self esteem you all must have to think that because a woman might be packing the same weapon you have you accuse them of being military feminists? You are as screwy as Bulwark and he's got a few screws loose! You are threatened, that's it in a nutshell! Your position as the 'me man, you woman' is going to be destroyed! How ridiculous and childish!
mhood175 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 11:25 PM
As far as pioneer women are concerned - they DID fight alongside the man because they HAD to since it was just them and the Indians. A pioneer woman could handle a long gun as well as their men could and they could protect themselves from friend or foe. It was simply a matter of survival!
Bulwark Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 11:49 AM
"True,they cannot do EVERYTHING a man can do just because of the upper body strength,BUT they CAN contribute and that is what they are asking for"

The battlefield doesn't reward contributors, it only rewards winners. To willingly increase the risk of troops dying on the battlefield, so that some may be allowed to feel good about themselves as they "contribute," is morally wrong, criminal, and, from a military aspect just plain stupid!
mhood175 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 11:16 PM
You are a silly twit! You take a word 'contribute' and twist it to put down what was intended by the comment. What word do YOU approve of? Is there one you like better? All military "contributes" by doing their jobs and how would YOU know about battlefields? I'd venture a guess that the closest you've ever been to a battlefield is in the movies! Just because a female is present in combat does not mean the troops are at risk - ask Israel - how many females have been responsible for their own comrade's being killed? You are such a dolt!
mhood175 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 8:43 AM
looking at all the negatives when there could be some positives. They know they can be killed, they know they must learn TO kill. Just like Negro pilots - no one gave them credit for being capable, but they proved themselves by forming the Tuskegee Airmen who NEVER LOST A BOMBER OR CREW THEY ESCORTED in WWII - never, and they did sacrifice 60 of their own before they won approval. If they can't make it then things will change, and yep, there will be challenges for them and the men, but who know, it may just work out just fine! Sure, adjustments will have to be made simply because they are women and deal with female issues, BUT, who says for sure it is going to fail? (The word above this is 'fought' - typo) Don't drum them out...
amirvish Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 12:10 PM
The Tuskegee Airman flew in all out combat against first class foes. Trading the occasional gun shot with 4th rate insurgents is hardly the same thing. Moreover, NO changes were made to training or standards or equipment to accommodate blacks, whereas huge changes have been made to accommodate women. Finally, there were no actual differences between the races. Had there been differences comparable to those between the sexes, racial integration would have failed.
AliveInHim Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 5:40 PM
Apparently you are ignorant of the fact that women flew transport in WWII. They also drove ambulances, saw to supplies being sent where needed, and a hundred other tasks which enabled the boys at the front to do what they were sent to do-defeat the Germans.

They also serve, who sit and wait...
mhood175 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 11:09 PM
And you, Amirvish, are comparing men to men when you tie the Tuskegee Airmen onto the bombers they protected - women were not involved! Unfortunately, this country has been so brainwashed that everyone has a 'place' and the little woman is supposed to stay in the kitchen and take care of the kids while the men go out and bring home the bacon! Well, times change, and it has changed - if it doesn't work out it will not continue - they are asking for a chance to find out and who are you to deny that request? It may fall flat on its face, but then again, it MIGHT be successful with adjustments! No one is saying they are going to compete with the men, they can't and any bloody fool would realize that, BUT, they want to be a part!
mhood175 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 11:13 PM
I don't know who you are calling ignorant of facts, BUT, I am very aware of the women in WWII and what they did. Solders on the field knew because of the nurses, ambulance drivers, and they served where needed - they just didn't fire guns in combat on the front line, but they were ON the front line doing their duty as they were assigned. Guess what, it all worked out, right? Without them, many would have suffered and died! They had bombs exploding all around, and they did their jobs as expected!!! What else or what more could you want?

Male or female, those of us who've been around for a while can recall clearly the objectives of the feminist movement as it geared up in the early 1970s. Workplace fairness was the goal.

A lot of manufactured indignation attended the feminist rising; e. g, who says we have to wear bras? Basically, nonetheless, what the rebels said they wanted was opportunity too long denied them by chauvinistic males. Opportunity they received from government, and in a larger sense, from the hand of a culture they prodded or embarrassed into agreement with most of what they said. Jobs opened up; power,...