- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,718
- 13,425
- 2,280
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.
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.
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.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?
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.