- Banned
- #41
So...you think a woman is asking for it...is volunteering for it.....right?Women are volunteering to fight. Show us an example of a woman volunteering to be a victim of domestic violence.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.
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?