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

[depotoo]

I agree with you on a number things. This one having any correlation to the other is just not the way I see it.

If indeed, it was the feminists that brought about this change in the NFL, it is a sad day for me, as I believe it should have had backing by most of the population, that brought it about.

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.

 

[depotoo]

I also believe there should never have been a separation of violence, assault, etc. into a category of domestic violence, nor of hate crimes. A crime is a crime is a crime- no matter the thought process behind it. By adding domestic or hate crime in front it makes one either lesser or one worse than the other, in people's minds.

 

[Theowl32]

I agree with you on a number things. This one having any correlation to the other is just not the way I see it.

If indeed, it was the feminists that brought about this change in the NFL, it is a sad day for me, as I believe it should have had backing by most of the population, that brought it about.

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.

You have to understand, I agree with the NFL. However, it is the liberal mindset that insists that women are equal physically to men that confuse me. All of a sudden it is back to the women are weaker mentality.

Well, if a man hits on another man or spits on another man is he expected to be hit? Would it be justified?

I am trying to point out another double standard. Cause it is a double standard based what we see them pushing on the Armed forces and fire department along with what we are fed in the movies.

 

[depotoo]

Personally, I believe if women can prove they are of equal stamina in the field, then so be it, if that is what they wish to do. Should standards be lowered? No. I do believe there are probably some men that also should not be in the field when push comes to shove.

But I still do not like seeing these 2 issues being compared in any way whatsoever.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Consider for a moment the pressure this would put on the wife or girlfriend of a player.
Let's say the player already has one infraction against him. He pushes her around again, she knows if she say's anything he's banned for life, and suddenly the million dollar lifestyle is over.
What does she do ? She's say's something and he'll really go ballistic.

 

[R.D.]

Consider for a moment the pressure this would put on the wife or girlfriend of a player.
Let's say the player already has one infraction against him. He pushes her around again, she knows if she say's anything he's banned for life, and suddenly the million dollar lifestyle is over.
What does she do ? She's say's something and he'll really go ballistic.

This assumes the million dollar lifestyle is worth the abuse so why would she report?

 

[depotoo]

Consider for a moment the pressure this would put on the wife or girlfriend of a player.
Let's say the player already has one infraction against him. He pushes her around again, she knows if she say's anything he's banned for life, and suddenly the million dollar lifestyle is over.
What does she do ? She's say's something and he'll really go ballistic.

If they are married and he does it again, hopefully he ends up behind bars and she can spend all she wants.
To make the excuse, let's not give him such a punish because he might get worse next time, is just a ridiculous argument. That type of argument is nothing more than saying "let's not rock the boat or they may become more violent". That is an excuse I would expect to hear from someone that has been in abusive relationships and remains in them or is themselves an abuser.

 

[Moonglow]

Women in other nations have proven that they can do the job of a man in the military....

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Consider for a moment the pressure this would put on the wife or girlfriend of a player.
Let's say the player already has one infraction against him. He pushes her around again, she knows if she say's anything he's banned for life, and suddenly the million dollar lifestyle is over.
What does she do ? She's say's something and he'll really go ballistic.

If they are married and he does it again, hopefully he ends up behind bars and she can spend all she wants.
To make the excuse, let's not give him such a punish because he might get worse next time, is just a ridiculous argument. That type of argument is nothing more than saying "let's not rock the boat or they may become more violent". That is an excuse I would expect to hear from someone that has been in abusive relationships and remains in them or is themselves an abuser.

I understand your point, but when his entire career hinges on her accusations, the pressure from family members, friends, other team mates could be tremendous.

In the end though, you're right, the guy belongs in jail.

 

[Circle_Breaker]

Good its ridiculous that beating your wife gets you 2 games, but smoking weed loses you a year.

 

[Circle_Breaker]

Women in other nations have proven that they can do the job of a man in the military....

I have no problem with women serving in the Military, as long as they can pass the same tests as men.

 

[depotoo]

I personally find it offensive when the NFL, as well as owners have gone on to allow in and hire those that have been found guilty of violent crimes. Brandon Marshall is a prime example. I let the Dolphin's owner know, in no uncertain terms, when they drafted him. He appears to be clean for 2 years now from any violence charges, but I would imagine after the upteenth chance he was given, along with his treatment now, he knows no more chances exist. If he realized after the first incidence there would have been no more chances he would have either changed his ways then and sought help as to why he behaved as he did, and many others would have been spared from his violent streak
The league and its owners have allowed the behavior to exist and spread. It has been long overdue that domestic violence be treated as any other violence.

I also believe that the courts and law enforcement also need to treat it just as any other violent act, even if the woman backs down.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just for clarity here, does "involved in" mean convicted of or does it simply mean the woman said so?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Women are volunteering to fight. Show us an example of a woman volunteering to be a victim of domestic violence.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Even when we volunteer and are good at our job?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Way to talk about the Manning brothers!

 

[depotoo]

From his memo-
Finally, and consistent with our Personal Conduct Policy, our own response to domestic violence or sexual assault incidents by NFL personnel will include new elements of evaluation, treatment and family support, as well as enhanced discipline. We will address these issues fairly and thoughtfully, respecting the rights of all involved and giving proper deference to law enforcement and the courts. If someone is charged with domestic violence or sexual assault, there will be a mandatory evaluation and, where professionally indicated, counseling or other specialized services. Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant. Among the circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty would be a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child. A second offense will result in banishment from the NFL; while an individual may petition for reinstatement after one year, there will be no presumption or assurance that the petition will be granted. These disciplinary standards will apply to all NFL personnel.With very few exceptions, NFL personnel conduct themselves in an exemplary way. But even one case of domestic violence or sexual assault is unacceptable. The reality is that domestic violence and sexual assault are often hidden crimes, ones that are under-reported and under-acknowledged. The steps we are taking will reinforce our commitment to address this issue constructively.In addition to focusing on domestic violence and sexual assault, we will continue to maintain strong policies regarding weapons offenses. We are similarly working to strengthen our response to impaired driving. We have sought -- unsuccessfully -- for several years to obtain the NFLPA's agreement to more stringent discipline for DUI, including mandatory deactivation for the game immediately following an arrest and a minimum two-game suspension for a first violation of law. We will continue to press our position on this issue in the hope of securing the union's agreement.

Just for clarity here, does "involved in" mean convicted of or does it simply mean the woman said so?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Strong women scare you, don't they?

 

[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.

Women are volunteering to fight. Show us an example of a woman volunteering to be a victim of domestic violence.

I cannot tell. Are you saying if a woman hits a man or spits on a man, that that man is justified in knocking her out?

Oh, is that what you are not saying? Good, cause that is not what I am saying.

Then again, women do not belong anywhere near combat or a battlefield. If you can pass all of the physical qualifications and the standards that are set up for men, then maybe. I still say no.

However, there should not be lowered standards in order to placate some feminist group.

I had to explain this?

 

[bodecea]

I agree with you on a number things. This one having any correlation to the other is just not the way I see it.

If indeed, it was the feminists that brought about this change in the NFL, it is a sad day for me, as I believe it should have had backing by most of the population, that brought it about.

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.

You have to understand, I agree with the NFL. However, it is the liberal mindset that insists that women are equal physically to men that confuse me. All of a sudden it is back to the women are weaker mentality.

Well, if a man hits on another man or spits on another man is he expected to be hit? Would it be justified?

I am trying to point out another double standard. Cause it is a double standard based what we see them pushing on the Armed forces and fire department along with what we are fed in the movies.

Wait....you're blaming the woman for provoking the violence against her, aren't you? Well, if that isn't classic, I don't know what is.