Reply With Quote
As evidenced by your level 4 score on the "How Straight Acting Are You" quiz.
Holy (I crack myself up with my bad puns), you really think women ruled the world?
I'm all for everyone being able to decide what they want out of life and what brings them happiness. If for you, that is the traditional female role, then I see no problem with that.
But, if I was a woman fighting for my equal rights and I read what you said, especialy the stupid part, I'd probably be offended. Women want equality, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think it's pretty ty to have a role defined for you based on nothing more than what you have between your legs. Or don't have, rather.
As evidenced by your level 4 score on the "How Straight Acting Are You" quiz.
What I'm saying is that women can have whatever they want. As a whole, however, we are going about it the wrong way. Let me think for a while and see if I can come up with a way to explain it so you'll understand my point.
yeah no ! come to think of it, those blacks and mexicans want equality too, what the is their problem?? they must have taken that "liberty and justice for all" thing to heart!what is the big deal??? why do women want to do everything like men...even fight in combat... why aren't women complaining that there are only a handful of women ceos???
!!!!!!!!
GoNButFunny
Let me rephrase the word "stupid", however. Perhaps the word "misguided" would work better in its place.
By the way, most men would call me "low-maintenance" and be quite happy about it! I don't need feminine, frilly, expensive things to make me happy.
Well, that really doesn't make it any better. What makes old gender stereotypes so damn great?
Some would call you misguided.
Try using the word pussy-whipped to get your point across. Manny will understand that.
Some of those stereotypes do have a basis in fact. Give me a good example. We'll discuss it.
I KNEW that was going to come up. This has nothing to do with Jess, although I doubt she would date me if I believed otherwise.
Well, what stereotypes do you think are based in fact?
Well, let's go back to Clan's post about women wanting to fight in combat. The stereotype would be that women are weaker than men. Feminists claim women can do anything men can. Do you really think that's true?
No, I don't think woman and men can do exactly the same things. There are biological differences between men and women. Men can't have babies, women can't impregnate other women.
However, I do think women are capable of outperforming men physicaly. I think in general, men are going to be larger and stronger due to the biological differences. But that does not mean that a woman can not meet and exceed the standards set for any member of the military who is to be allowed in combat.
Why must you exclude an entire gender without giving them an opportunity to prove themselves just like a man would be given? If they fail, then they aren't eligible. But if they meet the same requirements, what reason would there be to limit their participation?
I think, Manny, that I know the shortcomings of my own gender pretty well. Men could never make it through childbirth. But, if you look at just the size difference, I'd put a man into physical combat any day. Take my husband and I. He's 6'4" and 230 lbs. I'm 5'4" and 140. He's never panicked (unless one of the kids got hurt), but I think I'm mentally stronger than he is. Overall, however, I'd rather be next to him on the battlefield than me. Even if I meet the physical standards as set by the military, I'd still rather be next to him than me.
You know your own shortcomings, but I wouldn't even hesitate to say that you don't know the shortcomings or lack there of for every woman out there. You act as though every man put into combat is 6'4 230. Well, I know that's not the case. I know there are women out there who are more than capable of meeting any standards you place in front of them as far as combat goes.
You can argue all you want about men making it through childbirth. I honestly don't give a . I'm going to stick to the relm of what is actualy possible in this case. I don't plan on taking a dump anytime soon just to find a baby in the toilet, so you know, it doesn't matter to me.
Your husband may never panic, but men are by no means infallible to panic.
Either way, your husband is no more every man than you are every women, and thats not the way to judge the capabilities of an entire gender.
So, you really don't think that women wouldn't have the slightest bit of insight into the minds of other women?
I think people have insight into the minds of people like them. Do I think you have insight to the kind of woman who would want to be in combat and would be suitable to that? Absolutely not. No more than I have insight to the mind of someone who thinks the role of women is to be barefoot and pregnant. Both are opposites.
So, because I don't think women should be in combat, you assume that I believe women should be nothing more than drones in the household?
As a side note (don't know if you know or not), I was a military medic. Almost went to Bosnia.
I never said that. The above was in reference to opposites, not to you.
in general, women are weaker than men... of course, there are exceptions, but they are extremely few and far between... the military acknowledges it by their different standards for pt tests..
and yes, men and women would be screwing if they were on the front lines together.. the military makes women think they are beauty queens bc every horny servicemember goes after them no matter what they look like.. it is crazy!
I knew you were in the military, but I did not know what branch, type of service etc etc.
Honestly, what other reasoning do you have for excluding a gender from combat other than gut feelings or personal family observations?
That's not limited to the military. You put an ugly woman in an all male office, and watch out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
