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

[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.

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?

So...you think a woman is asking for it...is volunteering for it.....right?

 

[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?

So...you think a woman is asking for it...is volunteering for it.....right?

Why is it that liberals never get the point? Holy shit are they fucking annoyingly stupid.

 

[shart_attack]

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

Your posts on the USMB are pretty good proof.

@NLT

 

[Jarlaxle]

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 says 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.

Other side of the coin...how long before a woman gets dumped and decides to get her ex suspended?

Also: what, EXACTLY will it take to get a player suspended? Is it what I almost expect now: that is, where accusation constitutes guilt?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

The ones at the shelter my wife volunteered at would fall into that category, when they went back to the same abusive dirtbags again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!

She left in disgust after about two years, sick of watching them go back to get the crap beaten out of them for the thirtieth time. In her words, "The kindest thing you could do for some of these women is to shoot them in the head."

 

[daws101]

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?

the point being made is you hate women ..

 

[jillian]

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

The ones at the shelter my wife volunteered at would fall into that category, when they went back to the same abusive dirtbags again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!

She left in disgust after about two years, sick of watching them go back to get the crap beaten out of them for the thirtieth time. In her words, "The kindest thing you could do for some of these women is to shoot them in the head."

neither you nor she understand a single thing about abuse victims.

 

[jillian]

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?

no. feminists believe that if you WANT to fight, you should be able to, no matter what some insecure misogynist wants.

 

[jillian]

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?

the point being made is you hate women ..

yep

 

[daws101]

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.

yep, you hate women did a girl laugh at your tiny penis ?

 

[Jarlaxle]

neither you nor she understand a single thing about abuse victims.

Horseshit. She understood that she helped these people, including risking her OWN safety to help them...and they went right back to the same one dirtbag. He then beat the shit out of her again, and the cycle began anew.

And I understand plenty about being an abuse victim.

 

[boedicca]

How about strict rules against VIOLENCE in general...i.e., dog fighting and gang banger "hijnks"?

Doesn't the NFL care about animals and men?

 

[Unkotare]

This will always be an issue. Football is a violent sport that requires and rewards violent men. That so many can turn it off when they are not on the field is a testament to their character. Those who can't shouldn't be in the game because it will only make them worse.

 

[daws101]

This will always be an issue. Football is a violent sport that requires and rewards violent men. That so many can turn it off when they are not on the field is a testament to their character. Those who can't shouldn't be in the game because it will only make them worse.

right

 

[jillian]

neither you nor she understand a single thing about abuse victims.

Horseshit. She understood that she helped these people, including risking her OWN safety to help them...and they went right back to the same one dirtbag. He then beat the shit out of her again, and the cycle began anew.

And I understand plenty about being an abuse victim.

i doubt it.

it isn't about her. it is about the abused women. they are left without financial resources and power. they are isolated from all support systems (which is among the first things controlling abusers do). these men aren't ALWAYS abusive. they apologize. they buy gifts. they profess their undying love and tell her they'll change. she desperately wants to believe him because a) she loves him; b) she fears him' and c) her finances are tied to him and she likely has no control over her own money or any money.

you try starting over without a job, without a home and without resources when someone has threatened to kill you and your kids if you don't come home.

but someone who "helps" them doesn't feel their efforts matter because they can't CHANGE them?

like i said...

 

[jillian]

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.

that seems fair.

 

[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.

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?

So...you think a woman is asking for it...is volunteering for it.....right?

Why is it that liberals never get the point? Holy shit are they fucking annoyingly stupid.

Well, that bolded line certainly makes it appear like you think someone is asking for it.....so, tell us what your point was....plainly this time.

 

[bodecea]

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

The ones at the shelter my wife volunteered at would fall into that category, when they went back to the same abusive dirtbags again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!

She left in disgust after about two years, sick of watching them go back to get the crap beaten out of them for the thirtieth time. In her words, "The kindest thing you could do for some of these women is to shoot them in the head."

Yeah...probably a good idea that she left the shelter.

 

[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?

the point being made is you hate women ..

yep

He certainly seems afraid of strong women.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

good luck with that happening, they make too much money off of them. Look at the dog fighter. they rehired him. And what we heard from these same people cheering this, is he paid his dept to Society
so they start with domestic abuse they better make a list, no convictions of any felonies...if they did that they wouldn't have enough players for the league

they're such hypocrites