NFL makes strict rules against domestic violence, all to the loud cheers of feminists....

[Theowl32]

First case of domestic violence against a woman, and the NFL player is suspended for 6 games. The second violation will result in a lifetime ban.

All to the loud cheers of feminists everywhere (liberals).
NFL toughens punishment guidelines for domestic violence - The Washington Post



Mind you, these are the same people that want women to be fighting on the front lines on the battle field.

OWENS The feminist campaign to make weaklings of America s warriors - Washington Times

Feminism is trying to yank the U.S. military in two directions at once. While claiming that women have no problem meeting the rigorous standards of the SEALs or infantry, advocates of opening these branches to women argue that female members of the military must be protected from the male sexual predators that, we are assured, are widely represented in the military. However, they can’t have it both ways. Are women “hear me roar” Amazons, or are they fragile flowers who must be protected from “sexual harassment,” encouraged to level the charge at the drop of the hat?

In her 2000 book, “Real Politics: At the Center of Everyday Life,” the late American political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain identified the two extremes of modern radical feminism: the “repressive androgynists,” who contend that there are no real differences between men and women, indeed that the idea that there are differences is an illusion fostered by a repressive patriarchy; and the “feminist victimization wing,” which paints the relations between the sexes as a continuous train of abuses by men who victimize women on a daily basis.

For two decades, these wings of feminist ideology have worked in tandem to sustain an attack on the culture of the U.S. military, culminating in the recent decision by the Pentagon to open infantry and special operations to women. In light of the argument that women are capable of performing these elite missions, it is indeed ironic that the wedge issues driving the military toward this end have come from the victimization wing, stretching from the “Tailhook” episode in 1991 to the recent moral panic over alleged rampant sexual assault in the military.



Read more: OWENS The feminist campaign to make weaklings of America s warriors - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


So, to sum up. Feminists insist women can serve and it is sexist to not allow women on the front line of a war. However, if a woman hits a man or spits on a man then a man should not respond with violence towards a woman, cause she is far weaker.

They are all over the place folks. They are on two sides of every issue, and if there is a 3rd or 4th side, they will be on those sides as well.

 

[Stephanie]

Well, I guess dog fighting, rape, robbery, murder are still ok
I'm about done with the NFL and their silly rules and regulations, their political correctness and now they are THREATING states if they don't bow to something they want.

screw them

 

[Dutch]

Well, I guess dog fighting, rape, robbery, murder are still ok
I'm about done with the NFL and their silly rules and regulations, their political correctness and now they are THREATING states if they don't bow to something they want.

screw them

I'm sure they could care less. Old, haggish, former lunch ladies are not really their target demographic.

 

[Seawytch]

First case of domestic violence against a woman, and the NFL player is suspended for 6 games. The second violation will result in a lifetime ban.

All to the loud cheers of feminists everywhere (liberals).
NFL toughens punishment guidelines for domestic violence - The Washington Post



Mind you, these are the same people that want women to be fighting on the front lines on the battle field.

OWENS The feminist campaign to make weaklings of America s warriors - Washington Times

Feminism is trying to yank the U.S. military in two directions at once. While claiming that women have no problem meeting the rigorous standards of the SEALs or infantry, advocates of opening these branches to women argue that female members of the military must be protected from the male sexual predators that, we are assured, are widely represented in the military. However, they can’t have it both ways. Are women “hear me roar” Amazons, or are they fragile flowers who must be protected from “sexual harassment,” encouraged to level the charge at the drop of the hat?

In her 2000 book, “Real Politics: At the Center of Everyday Life,” the late American political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain identified the two extremes of modern radical feminism: the “repressive androgynists,” who contend that there are no real differences between men and women, indeed that the idea that there are differences is an illusion fostered by a repressive patriarchy; and the “feminist victimization wing,” which paints the relations between the sexes as a continuous train of abuses by men who victimize women on a daily basis.

For two decades, these wings of feminist ideology have worked in tandem to sustain an attack on the culture of the U.S. military, culminating in the recent decision by the Pentagon to open infantry and special operations to women. In light of the argument that women are capable of performing these elite missions, it is indeed ironic that the wedge issues driving the military toward this end have come from the victimization wing, stretching from the “Tailhook” episode in 1991 to the recent moral panic over alleged rampant sexual assault in the military.



Read more: OWENS The feminist campaign to make weaklings of America s warriors - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


So, to sum up. Feminists insist women can serve and it is sexist to not allow women on the front line of a war. However, if a woman hits a man or spits on a man then a man should not respond with violence towards a woman, cause she is far weaker.

They are all over the place folks. They are on two sides of every issue, and if there is a 3rd or 4th side, they will be on those sides as well.

Are you really trying to say that women volunteering to fight is the same as women being beaten by their partners? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[R.D.]

First case of domestic violence against a woman, and the NFL player is suspended for 6 games. The second violation will result in a lifetime ban.

All to the loud cheers of feminists everywhere (liberals).
NFL toughens punishment guidelines for domestic violence - The Washington Post



Mind you, these are the same people that want women to be fighting on the front lines on the battle field.

OWENS The feminist campaign to make weaklings of America s warriors - Washington Times

Feminism is trying to yank the U.S. military in two directions at once. While claiming that women have no problem meeting the rigorous standards of the SEALs or infantry, advocates of opening these branches to women argue that female members of the military must be protected from the male sexual predators that, we are assured, are widely represented in the military. However, they can’t have it both ways. Are women “hear me roar” Amazons, or are they fragile flowers who must be protected from “sexual harassment,” encouraged to level the charge at the drop of the hat?

In her 2000 book, “Real Politics: At the Center of Everyday Life,” the late American political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain identified the two extremes of modern radical feminism: the “repressive androgynists,” who contend that there are no real differences between men and women, indeed that the idea that there are differences is an illusion fostered by a repressive patriarchy; and the “feminist victimization wing,” which paints the relations between the sexes as a continuous train of abuses by men who victimize women on a daily basis.

For two decades, these wings of feminist ideology have worked in tandem to sustain an attack on the culture of the U.S. military, culminating in the recent decision by the Pentagon to open infantry and special operations to women. In light of the argument that women are capable of performing these elite missions, it is indeed ironic that the wedge issues driving the military toward this end have come from the victimization wing, stretching from the “Tailhook” episode in 1991 to the recent moral panic over alleged rampant sexual assault in the military.



Read more: OWENS The feminist campaign to make weaklings of America s warriors - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


So, to sum up. Feminists insist women can serve and it is sexist to not allow women on the front line of a war. However, if a woman hits a man or spits on a man then a man should not respond with violence towards a woman, cause she is far weaker.

They are all over the place folks. They are on two sides of every issue, and if there is a 3rd or 4th side, they will be on those sides as well.

Are you really trying to say that women volunteering to fight is the same as women being beaten by their partners? WTF is wrong with you?

Do you ever actually read before responding?

 

[Theowl32]

First case of domestic violence against a woman, and the NFL player is suspended for 6 games. The second violation will result in a lifetime ban.

All to the loud cheers of feminists everywhere (liberals).
NFL toughens punishment guidelines for domestic violence - The Washington Post



Mind you, these are the same people that want women to be fighting on the front lines on the battle field.

OWENS The feminist campaign to make weaklings of America s warriors - Washington Times

Feminism is trying to yank the U.S. military in two directions at once. While claiming that women have no problem meeting the rigorous standards of the SEALs or infantry, advocates of opening these branches to women argue that female members of the military must be protected from the male sexual predators that, we are assured, are widely represented in the military. However, they can’t have it both ways. Are women “hear me roar” Amazons, or are they fragile flowers who must be protected from “sexual harassment,” encouraged to level the charge at the drop of the hat?

In her 2000 book, “Real Politics: At the Center of Everyday Life,” the late American political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain identified the two extremes of modern radical feminism: the “repressive androgynists,” who contend that there are no real differences between men and women, indeed that the idea that there are differences is an illusion fostered by a repressive patriarchy; and the “feminist victimization wing,” which paints the relations between the sexes as a continuous train of abuses by men who victimize women on a daily basis.

For two decades, these wings of feminist ideology have worked in tandem to sustain an attack on the culture of the U.S. military, culminating in the recent decision by the Pentagon to open infantry and special operations to women. In light of the argument that women are capable of performing these elite missions, it is indeed ironic that the wedge issues driving the military toward this end have come from the victimization wing, stretching from the “Tailhook” episode in 1991 to the recent moral panic over alleged rampant sexual assault in the military.



Read more: OWENS The feminist campaign to make weaklings of America s warriors - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


So, to sum up. Feminists insist women can serve and it is sexist to not allow women on the front line of a war. However, if a woman hits a man or spits on a man then a man should not respond with violence towards a woman, cause she is far weaker.

They are all over the place folks. They are on two sides of every issue, and if there is a 3rd or 4th side, they will be on those sides as well.

Are you really trying to say that women volunteering to fight is the same as women being beaten by their partners? WTF is wrong with you?

Women do not belong anywhere near a battlefield, just like they should not be hit by a man for any reason. If you say they should be on a battlefield, then you sure as shit better believe if a woman hits or spits on a man, then she should be treated like the soldier that you advocate she is.

You, of course cannot see the double standards, the double talk, or the both sides of the issue you take.

Hypocrite.

 

[depotoo]

Good. If they are found guilty in a court of law, they should be. The abuse of anyone, whether domestic or otherwise, should hold high penalties for the players, just as they do others in life. This is no different than what Michael Brown did to officer Wilson, if indeed he broke his eye socket. Rice hit his fiancee so hard she lost consciousness.
Think of Michael Vick. He got a harsher penalty for his dog fighting from the NFL than did Rice for his knocking a human being unconscious.

And it has nothing to do with feminism.

 

[Theowl32]

Good. If they are found guilty in a court of law, they should be. The abuse of anyone, whether domestic or otherwise, should hold high penalties for the players, just as they do others in life. This is no different than what Michael Brown did to officer Wilson, if indeed he broke his eye socket. Rice hit his fiancee so hard she lost consciousness.
Think of Michael Vick. He got a harsher penalty for his dog fighting from the NFL than did Rice for his knocking a human being unconscious.

And it has nothing to do with feminism.

Question:

Do you believe women belong on the field of battle in a war?

Feminists do.

You can now see the point being made, right?

 

[depotoo]

Good. If they are found guilty in a court of law, they should be. The abuse of anyone, whether domestic or otherwise, should hold high penalties for the players, just as they do others in life. This is no different than what Michael Brown did to officer Wilson, if indeed he broke his eye socket. Rice hit his fiancee so hard she lost consciousness.
Think of Michael Vick. He got a harsher penalty for his dog fighting from the NFL than did Rice for his knocking a human being unconscious.

And it has nothing to do with feminism.

Question:

Do you believe women belong on the field of battle in a war?

Feminists do.

You can now see the point being made, right?

I believe it is an erroneous comparison. One has nothing to do with the other. Abuse and assault are in a category all on their own. Serving has nothing to do with either.

 

[Theowl32]

Good. If they are found guilty in a court of law, they should be. The abuse of anyone, whether domestic or otherwise, should hold high penalties for the players, just as they do others in life. This is no different than what Michael Brown did to officer Wilson, if indeed he broke his eye socket. Rice hit his fiancee so hard she lost consciousness.
Think of Michael Vick. He got a harsher penalty for his dog fighting from the NFL than did Rice for his knocking a human being unconscious.

And it has nothing to do with feminism.

Question:

Do you believe women belong on the field of battle in a war?

Feminists do.

You can now see the point being made, right?

I believe it is an erroneous comparison. One has nothing to do with the other. Abuse and assault are in a category all on their own. Serving has nothing to do with either.

They are related.

Women do not belong on a battlefield in a war. Period.

 

[Pennywise]

There's a thug subculture throughout pro sports that needs to be rooted out. It's a result of coddling talented athletes and the shitastic Rap ideology. I don't recall seeing all this crap when white men ruled the fields and courts.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

First case of domestic violence against a woman, and the NFL player is suspended for 6 games. The second violation will result in a lifetime ban.

All to the loud cheers of feminists everywhere (liberals).
NFL toughens punishment guidelines for domestic violence - The Washington Post



Mind you, these are the same people that want women to be fighting on the front lines on the battle field.

Are you really trying to say that women volunteering to fight is the same as women being beaten by their partners? WTF is wrong with you?

My sentiments exactly. The O/P clearly can't rub two brain cells together without suffering mental injury.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

There's a thug subculture throughout pro sports that needs to be rooted out. It's a result of coddling talented athletes and the shitastic Rap ideology. I don't recall seeing all this crap when white men ruled the fields and courts.

How many black men own NFL teams?

It's the OWNERS who have created the NFL as it is today, not the players.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the other foot. You shot yourself in the first one a long time ago.

 

[depotoo]

What does abuse and assault to women have to do with whether women fight on the battlefield? Women make the choice whether to join a military that does allow such. Abuse and assault victims do not choose relationships of such on the whole, unless they feel threatened even further, or so demeaned, they feel they do erroneously deserve it.

Because they get one wrong, in your opinion, obviously they must be wrong in their other? Makes absolutely no sense, in my book.

Good. If they are found guilty in a court of law, they should be. The abuse of anyone, whether domestic or otherwise, should hold high penalties for the players, just as they do others in life. This is no different than what Michael Brown did to officer Wilson, if indeed he broke his eye socket. Rice hit his fiancee so hard she lost consciousness.
Think of Michael Vick. He got a harsher penalty for his dog fighting from the NFL than did Rice for his knocking a human being unconscious.

And it has nothing to do with feminism.

Question:

Do you believe women belong on the field of battle in a war?

Feminists do.

You can now see the point being made, right?

I believe it is an erroneous comparison. One has nothing to do with the other. Abuse and assault are in a category all on their own. Serving has nothing to do with either.

They are related.

Women do not belong on a battlefield in a war. Period.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

This current commissioner is going to litteraly be the death of the NFL.

 

[Toro]

Fuck, yeah!

A man dragging his unconscious spouse into an elevator is nobody's business but the man and his bitch!

What a bunch of liberal pussies!

 

[Pennywise]

There's a thug subculture throughout pro sports that needs to be rooted out. It's a result of coddling talented athletes and the shitastic Rap ideology. I don't recall seeing all this crap when white men ruled the fields and courts.

How many black men own NFL teams?

It's the OWNERS who have created the NFL as it is today, not the players.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the other foot. You shot yourself in the first one a long time ago.

They're like zookeepers now. They feed them and try to keep them in line, but once out of the range of the whip the feral beasts resort to instinctual urges (rampant fucking, fighting, keepin' da bitches in line, etc. ). A bunch of overpaid, spoiled, mental defectives with the IQ of dryer lint.

 

[jillian]

Well, I guess dog fighting, rape, robbery, murder are still ok
I'm about done with the NFL and their silly rules and regulations, their political correctness and now they are THREATING states if they don't bow to something they want.

screw them

I'm sure they could care less. Old, haggish, former lunch ladies are not really their target demographic.

I find it bizarre that anyone would have a problem with them cracking down on spousal abuse.

for the record though, while I agree with the penalty for an initial infraction, I actually think the penalty for a second infraction sounds like it might be too steep and should require more of a case-by-case assessment.

 

[jillian]

There's a thug subculture throughout pro sports that needs to be rooted out. It's a result of coddling talented athletes and the shitastic Rap ideology. I don't recall seeing all this crap when white men ruled the fields and courts.

How many black men own NFL teams?

It's the OWNERS who have created the NFL as it is today, not the players.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the other foot. You shot yourself in the first one a long time ago.

They're like zookeepers now. They feed them and try to keep them in line, but once out of the range of the whip the feral beasts resort to instinctual urges (rampant fucking, fighting, keepin' do bitches in line, etc. ). A bunch of overpaid, spoiled, mental defectives with the IQ of dryer lint.

and whose fault is over-aggression when they are being stuffed with steroids, play a violent game and are given a pass on all of their other life skills because they make money for the owners?

the blame does not fall solely on the players. the owners can always forego the monies that over-aggressive players bring them. it is the OWNERS who create the NFL and every other sports league.

 

[Theowl32]

What does abuse and assault to women have to do with whether women fight on the battlefield? Women make the choice whether to join a military that does allow such. Abuse and assault victims do not choose relationships of such on the whole, unless they feel threatened even further, or so demeaned, they feel they do erroneously deserve it.

Because they get one wrong, in your opinion, obviously they must be wrong in their other? Makes absolutely no sense, in my book.

Good. If they are found guilty in a court of law, they should be. The abuse of anyone, whether domestic or otherwise, should hold high penalties for the players, just as they do others in life. This is no different than what Michael Brown did to officer Wilson, if indeed he broke his eye socket. Rice hit his fiancee so hard she lost consciousness.
Think of Michael Vick. He got a harsher penalty for his dog fighting from the NFL than did Rice for his knocking a human being unconscious.

And it has nothing to do with feminism.

Question:

Do you believe women belong on the field of battle in a war?

Feminists do.

You can now see the point being made, right?

I believe it is an erroneous comparison. One has nothing to do with the other. Abuse and assault are in a category all on their own. Serving has nothing to do with either.

They are related.

Women do not belong on a battlefield in a war. Period.

Because, what our liberal society is teaching is women can do whatever a man can do. Physically that is. They reduce the physical standards to be a firefighter in order to fill certain quotas through politically correct pressure. Etc etc etc.

The Armed forces is not different. If you research it, there have been reductions in the standards (or a call for the lowering of standards). We are inundated with this notion in entertainment....

There are many many examples. The point is the left push these images. There is a political correctness to this that is insidious and it also pushes deception.

Women, imo should not be allowed to be a firefighter for example, unless they can pass the physical standards that men have to pass. The fact that standards are lowered to satisfy ignorant feminists from the left who want the statistical numbers to represent women serving is what is wrong.

Having said that, we then go into a situation where Ray Rice knocks out his fiance. What we do not know is if that fiance hit him in the face or spit on him. Am I saying she should have been knocked out for that like a liberal will claim that I am saying.

No. However, if the feminists are going to insist that women can be a firefighter or serve as a soldier cause they should not be treated like some stepford wife, then do not cry out loud when woman gets hit after hitting or spitting on a man.

It is a case of the liberal world standing on two sides of an issue. Like they do on every issue.