Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: contrarymary on Sep 11, 2005, 04:03 PM

Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 11, 2005, 04:03 PM
lkanneg.

As much as I would like to read all the posts here, I simply don't have the time or the ability to concentrate.  You are very eloquent, but a bit verbose (as I can be, so please don't be offended).  

I was wondering if you could answer a question, then - as succintly as possible - which is an honest one, and asked with much respect and open-mindedness:

You said you are a feminist, right?  If so, why?  Why? What still needs to be accomplished?  I honestly can't think of anything, but then again, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Again, this is an honest question.  

But please - can we keep it short?  My attention span is crap these days.
Bullets would be helpful..... :P
Title: Re: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 11, 2005, 04:17 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
lkanneg.

As much as I would like to read all the posts here, I simply don't have the time or the ability to concentrate.  You are very eloquent, but a bit verbose (as I can be, so please don't be offended).  

I was wondering if you could answer a question, then - as succintly as possible - which is an honest one, and asked with much respect and open-mindedness:

You said you are a feminist, right?  If so, why?  Why? What still needs to be accomplished?  I honestly can't think of anything, but then again, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Again, this is an honest question.  

But please - can we keep it short?  My attention span is crap these days.
Bullets would be helpful..... :P


;)  I will make a numbered list just for you.  (thanks for asking in such a nice way, I really mean that :) )

1.  I believe in the social, economic and political equality of the sexes, which is the definition of feminism.
2.  I am deeply appreciative of all the things feminists of past generations have done to make it possible for me to have the life I have and I feel as if I am identifying with them by also calling myself a feminist.
3.  There are still jobs (few)  that women are barred from solely because of their gender.  There are still jobs (more numerous) that women must struggle with prejudice, from mild to violent, to enter into and succeed at, solely because of their gender.  There are still double standards in society that result in women suffering solely due to their gender (for instance, the sexual history of a woman is viewed very differently from the same sexual history if possessed by a man).  Etc. etc.  I oppose these things.
4.  The large strides forward in equality that women have achieved, are very new in the history of humankind.  Only a fool would take them for granted and assume they're unassailable.   "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  -Thomas Jefferson.  

Okay, it wasn't *that* short, but hopefully it wasn't *too* verbose.  Let me know!  :)
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 11, 2005, 04:25 PM
Thank you so much!  But I can't respond now....but do know how much I appreciate you dumbing down your posts for me.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 11, 2005, 04:28 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
....but do know how much I appreciate you dumbing down your posts for me.


That's GOTTA be sarcasm.  ;)  (If it isn't, I didn't dumb down anything!  Just offloaded my tendency towards verbosity.  You seem pretty bright to me...)
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: TestSubject on Sep 11, 2005, 04:36 PM
That's it?  Nothing actually vital or critical?   :shock:

I apologize for invading the thread but lets be honest here, feminists insist that men's rights activists have no purpose when they use the "boohoo I get called a slut when I act slutty and he/she doesn't" justification, what makes this any different for feminists?

What are those few jobs?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 11, 2005, 04:38 PM
Quote
contrarymary wrote:
....but do know how much I appreciate you dumbing down your posts for me.


That's GOTTA be sarcasm.  (If it isn't, I didn't dumb down anything! Just offloaded my tendency towards verbosity. You seem pretty bright to me...)


Honest, it was not.  Really.  I don't have the ability to concentrate anymore.  I appreciate your post - but we're baking a pie right now...tomorrow, then, and thanks - and I'm not being sarcastic, just honest in my assessment about myself.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: bukowski on Sep 11, 2005, 04:48 PM
I'm most certain that Ikanneg will say, no, it isn't so.  But still I'd like to confess something that I have personally wondered once or twice with all the time she has to post and respond at this single web site alone.  I sometimes wonder if she is secretly a middle class housewife with a lot of time on her hands.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 11, 2005, 04:55 PM
Quote from: "bukowski"
I'm most certain that Ikanneg will say, no, it isn't so.  But still I'd like to confess something that I have personally wondered once or twice with all the time she has to post and respond at this single web site alone.  I sometimes wonder if she is secretly a middle class housewife with a lot of time on her hands.


LOL, no.  Just a slow period at work, and I'm not posting on any other websites presently.  That slow period is ending next week; I'm going to be offsite a good deal, so you will see somewhat less of me.   ;) Lots of my neighbors are stay-at-home moms; maybe I can get one of them to take over.  Then again, the majority of them also appear to be homeschooling Christians with about a zillion kids, so I'm not sure how they'd take this board nor if *they* have any time on their hands.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 11, 2005, 05:16 PM
Quote from: "TestSubject"
That's it?  Nothing actually vital or critical?   :shock:


Well, *I* think those issues are vital and critical.  Nobody else has to though. ;)

Quote from: "TestSubject"
I apologize for invading the thread but lets be honest here, feminists insist that men's rights activists have no purpose when they use the "boohoo I get called a slut when I act slutty and he/she doesn't" justification, what makes this any different for feminists?


Where have I ever said that men's rights activists have no purpose?

Quote from: "TestSubject"
What are those few jobs?


In the Army women cannot serve in the following: infantry, armor, cannon field artillery and short range air defense artillery.
In the Navy women are excluded from Submarine Warfare, Special Warfare (SEAL) and ratings particular to submarine service such as fire control technician, missile technician, and one aspect of sonar technician.
The Marine Corps assignments closed to women are infantry, armor, field artillery, security force guard protecting nuclear material, and several positions related to armored, amphibious, assault units and fleet antiterrorism security teams.
Air Force positions closed or restricted are Combat Control, Special Operations Forces, Rotary Aircraft, TAC Pararescue, and Weather assignments with infantry or Special Forces.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 11, 2005, 05:59 PM
Pie!!!!! :1blue1:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 11, 2005, 06:03 PM
Quote
In the Army women cannot serve in the following: infantry, armor, cannon field artillery and short range air defense artillery.
In the Navy women are excluded from Submarine Warfare, Special Warfare (SEAL) and ratings particular to submarine service such as fire control technician, missile technician, and one aspect of sonar technician.
The Marine Corps assignments closed to women are infantry, armor, field artillery, security force guard protecting nuclear material, and several positions related to armored, amphibious, assault units and fleet antiterrorism security teams.
Air Force positions closed or restricted are Combat Control, Special Operations Forces, Rotary Aircraft, TAC Pararescue, and Weather assignments with infantry or Special Forces.


Do you think that any of the above named jobs might have any good reasons for not allowing women?  Do you think that women should be able to be hired for any job?  Do you think that the dumbing down of standards for jobs like the fire department in order to allow women to be hired is a good thing?

At this point men sustain 93% of occupational deaths.  Should we work towards 50/50?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 11, 2005, 06:19 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote
In the Army women cannot serve in the following: infantry, armor, cannon field artillery and short range air defense artillery.
In the Navy women are excluded from Submarine Warfare, Special Warfare (SEAL) and ratings particular to submarine service such as fire control technician, missile technician, and one aspect of sonar technician.
The Marine Corps assignments closed to women are infantry, armor, field artillery, security force guard protecting nuclear material, and several positions related to armored, amphibious, assault units and fleet antiterrorism security teams.
Air Force positions closed or restricted are Combat Control, Special Operations Forces, Rotary Aircraft, TAC Pararescue, and Weather assignments with infantry or Special Forces.


Do you think that any of the above named jobs might have any good reasons for not allowing women?  


No.

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Do you think that women should be able to be hired for any job?  


Yes.

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Do you think that the dumbing down of standards for jobs like the fire department in order to allow women to be hired is a good thing?


No.

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
At this point men sustain 93% of occupational deaths.  Should we work towards 50/50?


Allowing women to take the jobs that they desire and are qualified for but forbidden to do so solely because of their gender would be a step in that direction.  That question is a bit nonsensical though--rather like saying, "4 out of 5 forcible rapes are of women.  Should we work towards 50/50?"  Presumably what we want to do is work towards eliminating occupational deaths--and rape--regardless of the gender of the victim.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: bukowski on Sep 11, 2005, 06:20 PM
I think it's funny.

Men are forced into the military, navy, etc. when men's bodies are needed as a resource to fight for resources.  And before that force is intiated men are forced to sign up for that draft with legal consequences if they do not do so.

Women are oppressed from not being allowed in certain areas of the military, navy, etc...... :boohoo:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 11, 2005, 06:34 PM
Quote from: "bukowski"
I think it's funny.

Men are forced into the military, navy, etc. when men's bodies are needed as a resource to fight for resources.  And before that force is intiated men are forced to sign up for that draft with legal consequences if they do not do so.

Women are oppressed from not being allowed in certain areas of the military, navy, etc...... :boohoo:


Bukowski I was thinking the same thing.  And as politically correct as our armed forces are today I would bet they have some good reasons to restrict certain applicants.  Reminds me of the issue Gonzo talks about where women simply don't have the strength to toss a hand grenade far enough to not blow themselves to smithereens... but lkanneg thinks that women should be able to get hand grenade throwing jobs.  

Here's a clue, women and men are different and some things men do better than women and some things women do better than men.  My guess is that the hiring you are complaining about is based on performance qualifications not on gender.  Similar to the fire department problem that you seem to agree with.  Go figure.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 11, 2005, 07:13 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"

Here's a clue, women and men are different and some things men do better than women and some things women do better than men.  My guess is that the hiring you are complaining about is based on performance qualifications not on gender.  Similar to the fire department problem that you seem to agree with.  Go figure.


Nope.  Women are forbidden to do those jobs solely based upon their gender.

;) Though I spect you've hit upon a major point, though probably not the one you intended.  It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.  After all, if she really *couldn't,* then there wouldn't be a need to bar her based soley upon her gender, would there?  No woman would be able to pass the entrance testing for the job.  Does anybody *really* think that women are excluded from those jobs because there is *no* woman that can meet the same physical and mental standards as the men..?  And are men ever going to be brave enough to let themselves find out, either by raising the standards in the cases they've been lowered for women or by opening the jobs and keeping the same standards?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 11, 2005, 07:44 PM
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Some men, perhaps. But not the majority.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Sep 11, 2005, 07:54 PM
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Probably no more than there are women who can't *bear* the thought that very often the best man for the job is a man.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 11, 2005, 08:13 PM
lkanneg,  

Just another question.  Again, it's honest.  I have no ulteriior motive.  I don't dislike feminists at all - I don't hate anyone, really, not even T's evil ex and not even George W. Bush -

Do you really believe men and women are equal?

You stated as much (and I missed it - even though it was your first point.  Hence this edit.  Now do you see why I think I'm a dumbass?)

I do not. No way, no how, not in any stretch of the imagination.

And that's a good thing.  We have different strengths and, ideally, these strengths should be used to complement one another, not to compete with one another and certainly never to tear one another apart.

Sadly, some women perceive (rightly or wrongly) that their particular strengths are not valued as much as men's strengths.    I certainly felt that way myself for some time.

Now, it would seem, some men are feeling that they are not valued.  And why is this?  I'll ask the men here to answer that one.

I feel too much effort has gone into permitting and enabling women feel good (read: entitled) for nothing other than being female.  

One should feel one has value because one has actually done something valuable.  It's not an entitlement - one has to earn it.  AND it can not, must not, come from any source other than one's own heart and mind.   A few laws (affirmative action/anti-harrassment/whatever) aren't going to make self-entitled, self-absorbed slackers feel good about themselves - male or female.

It doesn't matter if it is baking cookies for a sick neighbor or designing a new software program or writing a song which will orchestrate someone else's life, or if it's carrying another human  to safety - these things are all valuable, and life would not be complete without everyone's contributions.  The important thing is to contribute - and feel good about what you have contributed.  My own modest contribution (and forgive me for being self-aggrandizing) is noticing everyone's feelings - and acting where I see a need.   I'm not your equal, lkanneg.  I couldn't hope to be. I'm not, say, Galt's equal either.  But I'll bet, as far as being thoughtful, generous, considerate and kind, some here may not be MY equal.    No, thoughtfulness is not the same as being able to rescue a 220 lb. man from a fire.  Is it worthless, though?  

A good comedian is certainly valuable on a Friday evening with a glass of wine and some friends, or when one is depressed, but on Monday, and the trash is piled outside your home, you would be plenty pissed off if the trash collector did not show up.

Are the contributions mentioned above equal?  No, not really.  Are they all equally important?  No, not really.  But which would you do away with?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: TestSubject on Sep 11, 2005, 08:17 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Absolutely!  Because...

Quote
2. I am deeply appreciative of all the things feminists of past generations have done to make it possible for me to have the life I have and I feel as if I am identifying with them by also calling myself a feminist.

4. The large strides forward in equality that women have achieved, are very new in the history of humankind. Only a fool would take them for granted and assume they're unassailable. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson.


...we are certain that when she does we'll never hear the end of it.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 11, 2005, 08:31 PM
Quote
2. I am deeply appreciative of all the things feminists of past generations have done to make it possible for me to have the life I have and I feel as if I am identifying with them by also calling myself a feminist.


Appreciation.  Thank you for the reminder - yes, all trailblazers for a worthy cause deserve gratitude - as well as the rank and file which backed the leaders up.   Many women as well as the men  have fought hard over the years to afford us all the lifestyles many of us have now - and in different ways.

I don't know too much about the early suffragettes - but I strongly suspect they had a lot of men supporting them.  Still, I understand your point.  Thanks for sharing that with me.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 11, 2005, 08:32 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Pie!!!!! :1blue1:


Well, somehow it evolved into apple crisp.  T's a great cook.  Somehow I got the impression you live in Maryland?  We should drive some down to you.... :)
Title: Re: Question for lkanneg
Post by: neoteny on Sep 12, 2005, 01:29 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I believe in the social, economic and political equality of the sexes, which is the definition of feminism.


So you believe in the definition of feminism... but what does it mean?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 12, 2005, 02:47 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
After all, if she really *couldn't,* then there wouldn't be a need to bar her based soley upon her gender, would there?


The military is not there to make you feel comfortable, or empower you as a woman, or raise your self-esteem.

The military has to process 10s and 100s of thousands of people in an efficient way.  From the studies I have seen, the capabilities of the average woman are not just below those of average men, they are far, far below them.  And averages are important when you're talking about bulk movements of people into certain areas.  No one cares about one superpower GI Jane when you're talking about bulk processing.  

Most women can't throw a hand grenade far enough to avoid blowing THEMSELVES up.  Them's the facts, Jack, whether they fit into the square hole of femnist ideology or not.

That may be the most efficient way for the military to handle things - aside from a whole lot of other issues involving women in combat positions.  Maybe they know more about it than an empowered feminist.



Quote from: "lkanneg"
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Men don't care as much as an empowered feminist would like to think.  It's simply designed to taunt men here, or otherwise play on the usual manipulation buttons of shaming men in some way that we all know so well from feminists.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 12, 2005, 02:50 AM
By the way, a simple thought experiment may point out reality vs. "equality" (or pretend equality).

If an all-female division went up against an all-male division in ground combat, who do you think would win?  Maybe feminists should institute a provision in the next War Convention about men having to take it easy on women in ground combat.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Wookie on Sep 12, 2005, 03:35 AM
Galt brought up GI Jane, I saw bits of that film at the weekend, in that film it was mentioned that Male solders respond differently when a female colleague  is down, the dwell too much or put too much effort in trying to save them compared to if they were male, the chivalry factor i suppose.

How true is this or is it just something that was in a film, anyone know?

Wookie
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 03:41 AM
http://fredoneverything.net/WomenInCombat.shtml

Quote
Women in Ground Combat

A Proposal For An Experiment

FRED REED

Let's look bluntly (I'm not sure how you look bluntly, but I'm going to have at it) at whether women should be permitted in ground combat. And then I will make a splendid and fair-minded proposal, which will be applauded by radical feminists everywhere. My guess is that I'll be awarded life membership in the National Organization for Women.

Should women be in ground combat? Good lord no. Females have no place in the infantry, artillery, or armor. They are too weak, too delicate, and too small. They fade after about a day of heavy marching and lifting. They just get in the way. They will get men killed. The idea is bad, everyone who has been in the military understands it, but no one has the moxie to tell feminists "No."

Maybe you haven't been afoot in a war zone. I have. In the mid-Sixties in was in armor in Viet Nam with the Marine Corps, spent a fair amount of time carrying a rifle, went through infantry training in Camp Geiger, which you don't want to try unless you are one healthy young buck. Let me tell you some things about ground life in war zones.

It's brutally physical. Try unloading a truck carrying mortar rounds. Hump sixty pounds uphill in Asian heat for an hour. When I was a Marine a flame-thrower weighed, if memory serves, seventy-five pounds. Try humping that sucker up hills of greasy North Carolina clay when you slide back almost as much as you go forward and your lungs are burning till you can hardly breathe. Try breaking track on armor when a platoon in trouble needs fire support right now. Don't talk about it. Don't theorize. Try it. In Lejeune we force-marched day after day, on three and a half hours sleep. No, that's not exaggeration. Try it.

OK. Go to your local gym. If you aren't a member, pay the ten bucks for a day pass, and watch. Stand around for a couple of hours, and watch what men lift. Watch what women lift. See whether you can detect a pattern.

Women don't lift slightly less than men, and aren't slightly weaker. They lift enormously less. They are catastrophically weaker.

Don't take my word. Go. Look.

I'm 53, five-feet-ten, 180, in better shape than average for my size and age, but nothing spectacular. I never amounted to much as an athlete. I go to the gym to stay strong enough to carry my scuba tanks. If I walked into a Marine gym and said I was the strongest guy there, the Corps would have to be disbanded, because you can't fight while uncontrollably laughing.

But I'm far and away the strongest woman I've seen at Gold's in ten years of membership.

For example, I do fifteen sloppy reps on the bench machine with 250, and fifteen reps with 200 on the lat pull-down machine (the chin-up machine, if you will). It's respectable. That's all it is. There are guys there who could lift that much with me sitting on top of it.

I've never seen a woman bench more than eighty (which is real rare, but not even warm-up weight for a man). I don't think I've ever seen a woman pull eighty on the lat machine. Twenty to forty is normal for them.

Don't call me sexist. Don't tell me I'm trying to be "macho." (Or do: I don't care.) Go look.

Want documentation? There is a branch of research called exercise physiology, which has studied the physical capacities of men and women in near-infinite detail (largely to help in training athletes.) Check relative cardiac capacity, erythrocyte counts, muscle-mass-to-body-mass. I'm not making wild assertions. You can find all of this in any university library.

Now, what do these physical differences mean for society outside of the military? Almost nothing. A woman doesn't need strength to be a surgeon, professor, senator, journalist, or CEO. But weak women will get men killed in war. I've seen wars. I've been on casualty wards. So have a lot of men. For us, war isn't abstract, and getting men killed to appease feminists isn't cute.

I promised to make a splendid proposal. Here it is. Let's take 100 males just out of basic training, and 100 females, also just out of basic and chosen at random. Let's take them all to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in a rainy October. We'll put sixty-pound packs on them, give them rifles and a full load-out of ammo.

Then we'll force-march them, at a fast pace set by an infantry sergeant, until they drop. I mean literally drop: can't stand up any longer. No stress time-outs, no little green cards to wave, no trucks to carry their gear, no slowing down. Hump till they fall. This is what happens in combat: grim, unremitting physical effort with no sleep. Maybe it's humping with rifles and seven-eighty-two gear, maybe it's breaking track on a P-5, maybe it's unloading those miserable six-bys. It's physical.

If the women keep up, I'll shut up. If they keep up, all critics of putting women in the infantry will have to shut up. Here is a wonderful opportunity for radical feminists everywhere. But know what? I'll get a lot of screeching and howling because of this column, accusing me of sexism and patriarchy. What I won't get is a call by feminists to make the test. They know what would happen.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 03:42 AM
http://fredoneverything.net/MilWomenII.shtml

Quote
Women In The Military II: Voices From The Field

Things Your Anchorperson Won't Tell You

FRED REED

Some time ago I wrote a column on women in or around ground combat, and the extent to which the services are lowering standards to make feminization seem to work. You won't hear much about this in the mainstream media. For one thing, the media favor feminization. For another, guys still in uniform have to be very careful about opening their mouths: It's a guaranteed career-ender for an officer. Some, especially the retired and therefore safe, nonetheless talk. Examples of my e-mail follow:

****

Fred,

I was perhaps one of the first commanders to have women in a combat command (the 3d Bde, 2nd Armored Div, called "Brigade 75") in Grafenwoehr, FRG, between April 1975-February 1977. In the Order of Battle Section of the MI Detachment which I commanded, the three enlisted intelligence analysts were unquestionably competent in technical skills and surpassingly adept in camp administrative tasks. They gave convincing briefings and, in a brigade which had no women dependents because of its six-month rotation of maneuver battalions (from Fort Hood and back), I never had any problems in getting men to pay attention to them.

However, in field settings, they invariably wore out after 24-36 hours of steady maneuver operations. Small in frame and of typically delicate musculature, I could not assign them to clamber up the 577 tracked vehicle, to string the razor wire around the tactical ops center perimeter, nor to engage in the rapid physical actions required to set up and tear down the gear during our frequent shifts of position. They had to sleep longer hours, to be worked around, and sheltered from harm during times of frenetic activity.

I'm sure that you know the end of the story. The brigade chain of command turned a deaf ear to my professional judgment that women had no place in combat support units. These officers were all veterans of Viet Nam, as I was. It was therefore a paradox to me that men whose professions had caused them to risk themselves in warfare, and who might one day might be called upon to sacrifice themselves and the lives of those they led for the good of the Nation, would demonstrate such cowardice in the face of their senior leadership.

Simms Anderson, LTC, USAR, Rtd.

****

All--[this was posted to an Internet list dealing in military matters: Fred]

To buttress Mr. Reed's observations, there is an excellent video out by PBS of all places called Politics and Warriors: Women in the Military. The footage of the trainees would put to rest any notion of "gender equity" -- the film shows men flying over logs, leaping over walls, ripping through obstacles courses and women pathetically floundering. Small, weak women demurely approach a dummy and say in a high pitched, sweet voice, "kill," while lighting tapping its "head" with the butt of a rifle, while men aggressively tear at the thing and charge on to the next target.

While a feminist General says in a voice-over that women can carry men, albeit maybe 2-4 women are needed but that women can get the job done, incredibly damning footage reveals the contrary. On the one hand, men with great ease jump on top of a horizontal pole and carry a heavy rubber casualty on a stretcher over it, while a group of women flounder pathetically at the same task (albeit a lower pole if one is observant). The stretcher is pushed against the pole at an angle, since they can not push it over, and the casualty slides off of the thing. As the women discuss what they should be doing, one of them says over and over "We're losing the casualty, we're losing the casualty." Seeing is believing! And this video is well worth it.

Best, Kate Aspy [Aspy recently served in the enlisted Army: Fred]

****

Fred--Your article "The Realities of Women in Combat" really struck a chord with my experience in the Air Force. I was a shop chief with the 28th Avionics Maintenance Squadron in the 1980s. There were two women assigned to my shop. One was really sharp at her job, but she couldn't change an RT-274/APN-81 without male assistance. The other couldn't even carry her own tool box to the flight line!

Supposedly, we supervisors were assured by the brass, these women were screened before being allowed into avionics maintenance by having to pass weightlifting standards. Yeah, right. They had to be able to lift 50 pounds. An RT-274 weighed in at 125 pounds plus. I don't know what the problem was with the woman who couldn't carry her own tool box. But I couldn't get rid of her due to pressure from the brass. So, I put her in a weight training program at the base gym. Until her honorable discharge and a pat on the back for a job well done, she never carried her own tools. She, therefore, was never able to pull weekend duty alone; there had to be a male assigned as well to carry her end of the job as well as his own.

****

Fred--

Germany, about ten years ago. We were on an FTX with some female GIs and had to put up the TOC tent. It was summer and hot. The girls were in t-shirts, some with no bras. You can imagine how that was. The guys ended up putting up the tents while the females stood around and gave encouragement.

That's normal. Every guy in the unit thinks, damn, if I'm nice to them maybe I'll get some R-and-R in the bush tonight.

Mike

****

Fred,

Here is a "no-shit" story from a career Army NCO who recently completed his instructor's course at an Army training center...quick, get the PC Gender Police... "In the instructors training course, we were taught that the proper way to erase a chalk board is with vertical strokes, not horizontal strokes. Horizontal strokes may cause a woman's breasts to jiggle."

Roger Charles
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 03:44 AM
http://fredoneverything.net/MoreWomenLetters.shtml

Quote
Women In the Military

More Letters From The Field

FRED REED

About our policy of putting women into military jobs for which they are not suited:

It isn't working. It isn't coming close. Sure, many women many jobs in the service do fine work. They know who they are. So does everyone else. The others are the problem. Regarding which:

For years I wrote a syndicated military column, and still get a lot of email from the troops. The following are some of these letters, edited for brevity and to obscure the writer's identity. Note the contrast with what you read in the newspapers.

Fred,

My last tour was during Desert Storm, [which was] basically the first real test of females in a combat zone and, in my opinion, failed miserably.

For example, an effort was made to reunite the females in our outfit with their husbands that were serving in different units to celebrate Thanksgiving together. The result was that 3 females evacuated due to pregnancy following these "conjugal visits". Furthermore, one of the girl Sgts decided to cash in on her gender and amassed quite a sum of money in her off hours.

During convoy "rest stops", any males found to be on the curb side of the vehicles were punished under Art. 15, UCMJ, for "spying on the ladies" while the "ladies" were relieving themselves. Now a vehicle must be checked during stops: oil, tire air pressure, trailer hitches, etc. How can one do it when they are limited to the road-side only?

Upon arriving at our Saudi Arabia / Iraq border containment area tents were erected. Of course you know who was detailed to erect the female tents! Right, the males!

Then there was the issue of latrines, you've seen them with the cut off 55 gal. barrels to catch the dung. Guess who was not detailed to the s- -t burning detail? Right again, seems the decision was made to keep the girls away from such a common task.

Can you imagine being in a Hummer on a cross country ride in the middle of the desert and it comes time for a potty break? There are no bushes, trees, rocks, just miles and miles of sand. The female has to go #2 and refuses to go behind a sand dune because there might be somebody watching from a distant dune.

When suggested that she lean up against a tire on the passenger side, she refuses because she might get her clothes dirty leaning against the wheel. When given a shovel to dig a "cat hole", she gets offended.

The bottom line is this, for each task the "girls" could not or would not do, a male was diverted to accomplish the mission, a Captain dug her a hole and instructed her how to use it, pathetic.

MSG,

US Army (Retired)

Dear Fred,

As one of a long string of Captains who have recently departed the United States Army, I can assure you that this is not about money. As far back as I can remember, all I ever wanted was to be a soldier. I realized that goal as an Attack Helicopter Pilot.

[In training] I was told that falling out of a run at the Warrant Officer Entry Course was grounds to be set back. I saw men set back. I saw women fall out constantly, but were kept. During a briefing from Perscom, the Lieutenant Colonel told us that any woman in that room could raise their hand and he would put them in AH-64 [Apache: a sophisticated anti-tank helicopter] training. He told the men in the room that there was not enough money to train them.

Later I served with a woman who had raised her hand. She was now pregnant and wanted nothing more to do with the Army. A slot had been wasted on a quota.

The same quota system also placed women in my unit supply room who couldn't lift a tent. So, while we were already under manned, now I had to pull soldiers off of the perimeter, to help out the women. These were also the same women without the upper body strength to pull back the charging handle on an M-60.

No, it is not about the money. It is about the destruction of an institution that we once held dear.

Name withheld.

From a long-time friend:

Fred,

Speaking of our political correctness, I will tell you something that I only know anecdotally--that is to say, I have no survey figures to pass on, but am relating what I see and what appears to be true to me. Do not use my name if you ever relate this in any way. I have been in [several] Reserve Army units during my Army career. I have been involved in many others through annual training sessions and TDY assignments. It appears that a significant number of the women in the Reserve units are minority single mothers. In some units, they seem to be a majority of the women in those units, but that may be merely my overreacting to what I was seeing.

Each is supposed to have a "child care" plan provided as part of their mobility record. However, upon questioning, those few I talked to revealed that they had no such plan. Call-ups frequently result in the minority (and some white single mothers) women suddenly "discovering" their mobility child care plan won't work for some reason (in fact, it never existed and I even suspect some of planning it that way). We find out that we lose 10-15% of each unit being called up. In war, a 15% combat loss is considered devastating.

Standards have all been removed for women to allow them to meet quotas where otherwise few or no women would be present. There are a few men who cannot meet physical requirements and they are eliminated. Many women cannot even reach the triggers of the service pistol or M-16 rifle. Many cannot shoot on the ranges, and say that if action occurred, they would cower in their Hummvees or foxholes because they could not fight and kill. These should not be allowed in the military at all, but they are kept in for political correctness reasons.

Again, this is anecdotal, but it is a serious problem in this politically correct military whose general officers are committed to telling the politicians what they want to hear: that women in the military are working out. They aren't.

You know the story. . . .

Name withheld
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 12, 2005, 03:56 AM
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Oh please.  What rubbish.  Lumping all men into a negative characterization is against the rules here.  Now you are starting to act like a typical feminist in  thinking that you know what men are thinking.  Here's a clue for you, you don't.  You make assumptions based on your ideology and since the ideology is based on hate the assumptions are so far off they are laughable.  

I am very much in favor of performance standards and then letting the chips fall where they may.  Whoever passes is in, whoever doesn't is not.  No gender crap.

Your worry over the armed forces discrimination is really quite amusing since if there is any discrimination at all it is a result of women being treated as a protected class and given special preferences.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 03:58 AM
http://fredoneverything.net/MilWomen.shtml

Quote
Military Pretenses

More Reasons Not To Enlist

FRED REED

The military has fallen apart. It needs fixing. The Pentagon pretends otherwise.

Because until after Desert Storm I wrote a military column that appeared in Army/Navy/Air Force Times, men still in uniform recognize my name and email me. The following are examples, with identification removed. The country will pay in lives for the things they describe.

The problem is not that we have women in the military. There are women in the services who have jobs they can do, who do them well, and who are dedicated to the military. They, and the men around them, know who they are. Rather the problem is (1) feminization of military values, (2) recruitment of low-grade women with no commitment to the armed services, and (3) unwillingness to discipline them.

Fred,

I am (a helicopter instructor pilot) at (a base.) The other day I was sailing along in the simulator with my two flight students when we got into a discussion about 14 hour flying days in combat.

One of the students asked the question "What did you do, pee in a bottle?" Well the female soldier working the console heard this, keyed the mic and said "You better watch it up there, someone said pee in a bottle." The two students were taken aback by this as was I. I quickly told this young Warrant Officer that the female soldier was correct. I can teach you to kill men and women and to blow things up but I can't allow you to say "Pee in a bottle."

Ask any man in the military today what the first thing he does before he opens his mouth and without fail you will hear "I look over my shoulder to see if there are any females in the area." Please don't use my name because I too am always looking over my shoulder.

Fred,

I just read your comments concerning any young man joining the military of today, [I said, "Don't do it": Fred] and I concur 100%. I go to LeMoore NAS for the Base Exchange and the Commissary, and in the process meet many of the base personnel. One thing I notice all the time is that they are either retiring as soon as they can, or are leaving without a retirement, because of the downturn in discipline and morale.

One Petty Officer told me that his relief on watch was three hours late. His Chief asked him not to write it in his report because then the person would have to be put on report, and since it was a black female, the Chief would have his butt reamed by the C.O. for not being more considerate. . .

Fred,

Here are a few more [examples of what happens today in the military] for you.

"Ma'am do you think when the time comes that you have to pull the trigger going into an LZ you are going to be able to do it?" "Oh no, I could never kill anyone. Since I had my baby my whole outlook has changed." Then why are you here? "I just thought it would be something fun to do."

"Ma'am, could you tell me the definition of this term in aviation." Her reply "Who gives a shit?" The same female student was caught reading a novel when she was supposed to be studying for her checkride. "You're damn right I was reading a novel, I'd have been bored to death otherwise" She busted several checkrides but she is out there occupying a seat today.

"LT, do you understand the Colonel has given a direct order prohibiting you from driving your POV to the flight line?" "So, what's he going to do, keep me after school?"

How about the LT that broke into the Post Golf Courses Pro Shop and stole a golf bag? He cut himself badly when he busted out the window so the MP's checked the hospital on post and caught him. He still is in flight school.

Then there were the two female flight students who were caught red handed shoplifting at the PX and were allowed to finish flight school.

You will love this one. If a student falls asleep during class we are not allowed to wake them up. We have to take their name and send it up through channels. We also are not allowed to say anything about them being late for class, again we have to take their name and send it up through the chain of command and you know how effective that is.

You are right on the money when you say don't let your son join!!!!

Fred,

Your most recent article on gender crap... I mean gap, in the military reminded me of the most ridiculous thing I ever saw in my almost 20 years in this business. It was in the Stars and Stripes last year. I was stationed south of Seoul when I read about this MP outfit in Korea that had a... I think it was called a Sympathy Belt? Anyway it was a device that was strapped on to the abdomen of the user... in this case a male captain, 0-3, the unit commander, to simulate a pregnancy late in the third trimester. The idiot looked absolutely moronic in his Maternity Battle Dress Uniform (yes, we have 'em...) The idea is to develop appreciation for what his knocked up soldiers (ugh) are experiencing.

This was part of the mandatory CO2 (Consideration of Others) training required along with our Violence in the Workplace prevention training.... honest to God... in the g.d. Army!! Prevention of Violence in the military.... kinda like Prevention of Sports in the Stadium....

Fred,

I agree with your opinion about women in the military. But I don't think your proposal for a 'force-march' is necessary to resolve this issue. Every time we conduct a brigade run during PT your point is made. The women in the formations drop out in droves.

I don't understand why these women can't keep up. You would think that an exercise like running would be an equalizer between the sexes, but it's obviously not. It goes back to want you've said about lowered standards coupled with a hesitancy on the part of the chain-of-command to enforce even these sorry standards out of fear with getting slapped with an EO complaint, which in turn can be career ending. The whole situation is rather pathetic.

Keep telling it like it is.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 03:59 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Oh please.  What rubbish.  Lumping all men into a negative characterization is against the rules here.  Now you are starting to act like a typical feminist in  thinking that you know what men are thinking.  Here's a clue for you, you don't.  You make assumptions based on your ideology and since the ideology is based on hate the assumptions are so far off they are laughable.  

I am very much in favor of performance standards and then letting the chips fall where they may.  Whoever passes is in, whoever doesn't is not.  No gender crap.

Your worry over the armed forces discrimination is really quite amusing since if there is any discrimination at all it is a result of women being treated as a protected class and given special preferences.


As is amply demonstrated by Fred.

And I ain't through yet.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 12, 2005, 04:11 AM
I think feminists probably KNOW this, but they are still going to claim no knowledge of it or deny it and continue trying to pound the square peg of feminist ideology into the round hole of reality.

The major pity is not that feminists lie and deceive and manipulate, we're pretty much used to that, it's that many men don't have enough balls to finally stand up to them.  And maybe I understand that a little - you can lose your job and livelihood and many other things if you stand up to them in society today.  Let's all play pretend and ignore reality.  In fact, you better if you know what's good for you.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 04:14 AM
http://fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml
Quote
Women In Combat

Facts From A Closet

FRED REED

Occasionally I have written that placing women in physically demanding jobs in the military, as for example combat, is stupid and unworkable. Predictably I've gotten responses asserting that I hate women, abuse children, cannibalize orphans, and can't get a date. A few, with truculence sometimes amplified by misspelling, have demanded supporting data.

OK. The following are from documents I found in a closet, left over from my days as a syndicated military columnist ("Soldiering," Universal Press Syndicate). Note the dates: All of this has been known for a long time.

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength... An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."

Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:

"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.

"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."

From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. ...Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:

"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge...."

The following, quoted by Brian Mitchell in his book Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster (Regnery, 1998) and widely known to students of the military, are results of a test the Navy did to see how well women could perform in damage control -- i.e., tasks necessary to save a ship that had been hit.

Test             Women Failing                                        % Men Failing
             Before Training/After Training   Before Training/After Training   
Stretcher carry, level                    63/38    0/0  
Stretcher carry/up, down ladder    94/88  0/0  
Fire hose                                    19/6   0/0  
P250 pump, carry down                99/99   9/4
P250 pump, carry up                     73/52   0/0  
P250, start pump                         90/75  0/0  
Remove SSTO pump                  99/99  0/0  
Torque engine bolt                    78/47  0/0  

Our ships can be hit. I know what supersonic stealthed cruise missiles are. So do the Iraqis.

Also from the Commission's report: "Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead's testimony before the Commission, 'the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.'"

Maybe we need armored strollers.

My friend Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I'm not on drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in Reader's Digest, February, 1999, and is online in the Digest's archives.

She told me the following about her experiences: "I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn't. It wasn't even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries.

"They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren't allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them 'Battle Buddies.' It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn't go to the bathroom by myself."

Women are going to take on the North Korean infantry, but need protection in the ladies' room. Military policy is endlessly fascinating.

When I was writing the military column, I looked into the experience of Canada, which tried the experiment of feminization. I got the report from Ottawa, as did the Commission. Said the Commission:

"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1.

From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon's library:

(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing.

Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women..." Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera.

The military is perfectly aware of all of this. Their own magazine has told them. They see it every day. But protecting careers, and rears, is more important than protecting the country.

Anyway, for those who wanted supporting evidence, there it is.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 04:15 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
I think feminists probably KNOW this, but they are still going to claim no knowledge of it or deny it and continue trying to pound the square peg of feminist ideology into the round hole of reality.

The major pity is not that feminists lie and deceive and manipulate, we're pretty much used to that, it's that many men don't have enough balls to finally stand up to them.  And maybe I understand that a little - you can lose your job and livelihood and many other things if you stand up to them in society today.  Let's all play pretend and ignore reality.  In fact, you better if you know what's good for you.


Well, as you can see, Galt, it is well known - and merely ignored because it doesn't fit doctrinaire feminist dogma.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 12, 2005, 04:38 AM
Quote
2. I am deeply appreciative of all the things feminists of past generations have done to make it possible for me to have the life I have and I feel as if I am identifying with them by also calling myself a feminist.


A post script about appreciation:

I appreciate the Domino's pizza driver when he comes at 1 am and I'm hungry and had too much wine to drive, but I'm not going to become a pizza delivery woman anytime soon - and my gratitude does not negate the fact that it's costly, lousy pizza.

A facile analogy?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 12, 2005, 04:41 AM
Regarding women in combat - ya know, where did we all get this idea that just because WE want something, means we are entitled to it and that we should get it?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 04:51 AM
Yeah - I love riding horses, but at 7' and about 300#, the horses that can hold me aren't racers - but do you see me bitching about how "unfair" it is that I'm not allowed to be a jockey or steeplechase rider because of an accident of my birth?

If I did that, I'd be laughed at and called a whiner.  Well, go thou and do likewise...
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 12, 2005, 04:59 AM
Quote
7'
?????????????????????????????????

:shock:

Now, I could fit on a race horse - I'm jockey size.  And I have no interest.   None whatsoever.

I have no interest in throwing grenades either -which is good, because I couldn't do it.  You, on the other hand, could ride a race horse, but are too tall.

Such is life.  You seem to be making the best of it.  And therein lies the key.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 05:12 AM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
7'
?????????????????????????????????

:shock:

Now, I could fit on a race horse - I'm jockey size.  And I have no interest.   None whatsoever.

I have no interest in throwing grenades either -which is good, because I couldn't do it.  You, on the other hand, could ride a race horse, but are too tall.

Such is life.  You seem to be making the best of it.  And therein lies the key.


Often the difference between successful and unsuccessful people.  In order to be a success, I focused on all I could do, instead of what I couldn't do.  And instead of handing that success to me, via policies of affirmative action, I have earned it, and have no need to defend racist or sexist policies which promote the undeserving at the expense of the deserving - because I have no insecurity about my success.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Cudaguy on Sep 12, 2005, 05:28 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"

Here's a clue, women and men are different and some things men do better than women and some things women do better than men.  My guess is that the hiring you are complaining about is based on performance qualifications not on gender.  Similar to the fire department problem that you seem to agree with.  Go figure.


Nope.  Women are forbidden to do those jobs solely based upon their gender.

;) Though I spect you've hit upon a major point, though probably not the one you intended.  It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.  After all, if she really *couldn't,* then there wouldn't be a need to bar her based soley upon her gender, would there?  No woman would be able to pass the entrance testing for the job.  Does anybody *really* think that women are excluded from those jobs because there is *no* woman that can meet the same physical and mental standards as the men..?  And are men ever going to be brave enough to let themselves find out, either by raising the standards in the cases they've been lowered for women or by opening the jobs and keeping the same standards?


What a load of crap. But, then again, I'm just some oppressor guy. :roll:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 12, 2005, 05:30 AM
When I was a young girl, I used to read the paper.  Jobs were classified into:

HELP WANTED - MALE
HELP WANTED - FEMALE

When I was a teen, I decided I wanted to be what we called a "disc jockey".  And, trust me, I had the skills.  But I was female and, at the time, women in radio were few and far between.  But I decided I would go for it anyway.

I went to the broadcasting school, and the director of admissions was shocked.   He had only glanced at my last name when he looked over his appointments for the day, and did not expect to see a 17 year old girl show up.   But after he listened to me, he was very impressed and why?  Because he knew I could do the job.  And I was accepted into the school - and he was actually excited about the possibilities.

(I didn't go, btw.  My own inability to say no to anyone bit me in the ass when I ended up pregnant - no one's fault but my own.)

Men are inherently fair creatures - more so, IMHO, than many women.  Most will give someone a chance as long as she or he doesn't expect special privileges or exceptions.  Did those who were dead set against women in formerly men-only jobs need a gentle push to become more open-minded?  Yes.

Was the man-hating agenda necessary, then, to break barriers?  No, and it's gone so far now that many men are really beginning to hate us.  

And the fault doesn't lie with them, it lies with US.  Too many women are self-entitled, self-absorbed lazy bitches who want everything handed to them on a silver Vera Wang platter (which, of course, someone ELSE paid for).  Don't get me wrong - many are not BUT my perception is that the number of selfish women who will lie and manipulate when they don't get their way is growing.....and why?  Because they get away with their lies and demands with impunity - thanks to the feminists who scream "foul" everytime they feel a woman's "rights" have been violated.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 12, 2005, 05:38 AM
PS

Be scared of anything larger and stronger than you that hates you.  Be very scared.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 07:26 AM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
PS

Be scared of anything larger and stronger than you that hates you.  Be very scared.


I wouldn't worry about actively getting beat up - just profound indifference.

Probably worse, but...
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 11:30 AM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Some men, perhaps. But not the majority.


I hope that's true.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 12, 2005, 11:33 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Some men, perhaps. But not the majority.


I hope that's true.


I suspect that is the most dishonest statement you have ever made here thus far, lkanneg. Men can bear the thought, but can the women who feel like you bear the thought of rejection when they cannot meet the required physical expectation? From my lifes experience and from watching the world around me, all I see is what your statement said.....excuses, reversals and diversions just to get what they want anyhow. All at the expense of someone who actually counts on them to deliver, not pose in lieu of their unearned title.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: bluegrass on Sep 12, 2005, 11:39 AM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Some men, perhaps. But not the majority.


I hope that's true.


I suspect that is the most dishonest statement you have ever made here thus far, lkanneg. Men can bear the thought, but can the women who feel like you bear the thought of rejection when they cannot meet the required physical expectation? From my lifes experience and from watching the world around me, all I see is what your statement said.....excuses, reversals and diversions just to get what they want anyhow. All at the expense of someone who actually counts on them to deliver, not pose in lieu of their unearned title.


Yeah well that's pretty classic -- isn't it?

Rather than address the argument, why not just characterize the emotional or psychological state of the arguer; even though commons sense tells us one could probably never know what that is?

Word like backlash or misogynist are the typical tools one uses.  It then becomes a completely different argument:

"I don't think women should be in combat roles."

"That's because you're afraid of strong women."

"I'm not afraid of strong women."

"Yes you are."

Now you're not even talking about women in combat roles any more.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 12, 2005, 11:41 AM
I can't speak for other men, but what irritates me personally is the thump ... thump ... thump of "acknowledge me, please acknowledge me".

As an example, Ikanneg came on here and within moments we knew that she was in the military, she claimed to pass all of the standards that men had to meet, and she is a graduate in chemical engineering.  

That's more than people really know about me since I've been on these boards.

And the joke is: Plenty of men were in the military and then got a degree in some type of engineering.  So what.

And slowly, slowly, I have to apply this egocentric explosion on the part of Ikanneg to the category of: So what.  Tons of men were in the military, passed the men's standards (LOL) and got a degree in engineering.  I don't know what even prompts this big expectation on the part of women to acknowledge any jack-shit thing they've done in their life.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 12, 2005, 11:42 AM
Precisely, I have been reading those tactical ploys from femnists on forums for many years, BlueGrass. Classic about fits it to a T. :roll:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 11:46 AM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
lkanneg,  

Just another question.  Again, it's honest.  I have no ulteriior motive.  I don't dislike feminists at all - I don't hate anyone, really, not even T's evil ex and not even George W. Bush -


;) I don't like Dubya either.

Quote from: "contrarymary"
Do you really believe men and women are equal?

You stated as much (and I missed it - even though it was your first point.  Hence this edit.  Now do you see why I think I'm a dumbass?)

I do not. No way, no how, not in any stretch of the imagination.


I think we're defining "equal" differently.  "Equal" is one of those words that have many meanings...there's the mathematical "equal," which is the sense I think you're using it in here, and of course, using that definition, men and women are not equal.  Any two men, in that sense, that you pluck off the street, are not equal.  The "equal" I am using is the "equal" used in the sense of the Declaration of Independence..."we hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are created equal."  Was the author saying that all men are identically smart, strong, brave, hardworking, attractive...?  No, of course not.  Was he saying that all men *should be treated equally by their society?*  Yes.  And that is the sense in which I believe men and women are equal.

Quote from: "contrarymary"
And that's a good thing.  We have different strengths and, ideally, these strengths should be used to complement one another, not to compete with one another and certainly never to tear one another apart.


The problem with this statement is that it assumes that there are a set of "women's strengths" and a set of "men's strengths" and that these strengths do not frequently cross the gender lines.  I, for instance, have a great deal of what I believe is frequently regarded as "men's" strengths.  I am of a mathematical and scientific frame of mind.  I have a high mechanical aptitude.  I am goal-oriented rather than process-oriented.  I am ambitious.  I am tall.  I am strong and fast.  I am physically courageous and quick-thinking in a crisis.  So...where does this leave me, if the world is to be ordered that women should be the only ones doing the things that embody "women's strengths" and men should be the only ones doing the things that embody "men's strengths?"  Where does this leave others?  In a world where women can't be soldiers and engineers and men can't be primary caregivers and teachers of small children..?  ooh, that *does* sound a bit like the world a lot of people think should exist, doesn't it...

Quote from: "contrarymary"
Now, it would seem, some men are feeling that they are not valued.  And why is this?  I'll ask the men here to answer that one.


I hope they do--I'd like to see the answers to that question too.

Quote from: "contrarymary"
I feel too much effort has gone into permitting and enabling women feel good (read: entitled) for nothing other than being female.


(sigh) I think I know what you're referring to, and I don't care much for it either.

Quote from: "contrarymary"
My own modest contribution (and forgive me for being self-aggrandizing) is noticing everyone's feelings - and acting where I see a need.   I'm not your equal, lkanneg.  I couldn't hope to be. I'm not, say, Galt's equal either.  But I'll bet, as far as being thoughtful, generous, considerate and kind, some here may not be MY equal.    No, thoughtfulness is not the same as being able to rescue a 220 lb. man from a fire.  Is it worthless, though?


Aggh, of *course* you're my equal!!  We're not the SAME, no, but jeez, equal, absolutely...everybody on this board is my equal and I theirs (imo)...yes, I agree that people tend to take raw data...such as what such-and-so is good at or bad at...and then make value judgements about it.  Death to value judgements based upon intrinsic abilities and capabilities.  :P
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 12, 2005, 11:46 AM
[Edited]
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 12, 2005, 11:47 AM
Holy moly, Galt! pour it on, brother!!! :shock:  :D  :D

lkanneg reminds me of another woman who I had the distinct experience to read on multiple forums under a zillion different names she used. She could do it all, she knew it all, she knew people, more people than anyone in the world knew....and those people knew it all too, more than you! That's because all those people were her. BWAAAhhahahahahaa!!

....sorta reminds me of a Dr. Seuss rhyme....lol!!
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 11:48 AM
Quote from: "TestSubject"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Absolutely!  Because...

Quote
2. I am deeply appreciative of all the things feminists of past generations have done to make it possible for me to have the life I have and I feel as if I am identifying with them by also calling myself a feminist.

4. The large strides forward in equality that women have achieved, are very new in the history of humankind. Only a fool would take them for granted and assume they're unassailable. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson.


...we are certain that when she does we'll never hear the end of it.


:snort:   :lol:   That is actually pretty funny.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 11:56 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Oh please.  What rubbish.  Lumping all men into a negative characterization is against the rules here.  


:(   Oh dear.  I didn't mean to break a board rule.  Should I have said, "Some men..." ?  Would that have been okay?

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
I am very much in favor of performance standards and then letting the chips fall where they may.  Whoever passes is in, whoever doesn't is not.  No gender crap.


Me too.  Dead on target.  Wish everyone else thought so.  ;)
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 12, 2005, 11:57 AM
One aspect of this issue that seems to be missing from the dialog:

The political ramifications and the "optics" involved with women in combat situations.

The political elite and military commanders are not living in a vacuum here folks.  They know, like everyone else here, that images of dead and dismembered women from the "battlefield" will instantly kill a large measure of support from the American public, regardless of the merits of the actual campaign.  

Hell, right now you guys have to deal with "anguished mothers" on the anti-war front.  Given the almost universal anti-war sentiments of most feminist organizations (men the oppressor, imperialist swine are unable to control thier testosterone induced rage - ergo, we have war), I think the hesitation to cave in on this issue is pretty well based on reality.

Add to that the inherent physical differences between the sexes, and resultant ability to carry out combat duties; the chivalric desire to "rescue women" aka Jessica Whatshername (nothing like making a hero out of nothing); and as evidenced by certain recent events, the political pressure to advance in rank due to "affirmative" action rather than ability...Gee, I wonder why the Pentagon isn't all over this GLARING INEQUITY...

I think it speaks more to the issue to be honest, that lkanneg can't (or at least didn't) come up with a non-military example.
Title: Re: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 11:59 AM
Quote from: "neoteny"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I believe in the social, economic and political equality of the sexes, which is the definition of feminism.


So you believe in the definition of feminism... but what does it mean?


It means that there should be no restrictions or penalties imposed upon what people may or may not do, be, own or otherwise interact in any way with solely based upon their gender.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:00 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
2. I am deeply appreciative of all the things feminists of past generations have done to make it possible for me to have the life I have and I feel as if I am identifying with them by also calling myself a feminist.


A post script about appreciation:

I appreciate the Domino's pizza driver when he comes at 1 am and I'm hungry and had too much wine to drive, but I'm not going to become a pizza delivery woman anytime soon - and my gratitude does not negate the fact that it's costly, lousy pizza.

A facile analogy?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.


;) Domino's pizza sucks.  But it doesn't impact the entire course of my existence.  Gender-biased laws and social mores do.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 12:01 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Oh please.  What rubbish.  Lumping all men into a negative characterization is against the rules here.  


:(   Oh dear.  I didn't mean to break a board rule.  Should I have said, "Some men..." ?  Would that have been okay?


Well, Doc, you've been condescended to with plausible deniability.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:02 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Regarding women in combat - ya know, where did we all get this idea that just because WE want something, means we are entitled to it and that we should get it?


I am a big-time proponent of the idea that if WE want something AND WE are capable of doing it to the specified standard, then our gender alone is a stupid reason to say we aren't allowed to do it.
Title: Re: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 12:03 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "neoteny"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I believe in the social, economic and political equality of the sexes, which is the definition of feminism.


So you believe in the definition of feminism... but what does it mean?


It means that there should be no restrictions or penalties imposed upon what people may or may not do, be, own or otherwise interact in any way with solely based upon their gender.


Unless of course women can't meet the grade for high paying jobs in the proportions feminazis would like.  Then handouts like affirmative action are *sigh* regrettably necessary and *sigh* different, and *sigh* something that has no better solution.

Oh, almost forgot ...

";)"
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:04 PM
Quote from: "Cudaguy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"

Here's a clue, women and men are different and some things men do better than women and some things women do better than men.  My guess is that the hiring you are complaining about is based on performance qualifications not on gender.  Similar to the fire department problem that you seem to agree with.  Go figure.


Nope.  Women are forbidden to do those jobs solely based upon their gender.

;) Though I spect you've hit upon a major point, though probably not the one you intended.  It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.  After all, if she really *couldn't,* then there wouldn't be a need to bar her based soley upon her gender, would there?  No woman would be able to pass the entrance testing for the job.  Does anybody *really* think that women are excluded from those jobs because there is *no* woman that can meet the same physical and mental standards as the men..?  And are men ever going to be brave enough to let themselves find out, either by raising the standards in the cases they've been lowered for women or by opening the jobs and keeping the same standards?


What a load of crap. But, then again, I'm just some oppressor guy. :roll:


Be true to yourself.  ;)
Title: Re: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 12, 2005, 12:06 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
It means that there should be no restrictions or penalties imposed upon what people may or may not do, be, own or otherwise interact in any way with solely based upon their gender.


In other words, the feminist philosophy of "ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you".  (With apologies to JFK).

In other words, feminists want unrestricted freedom to do as men, but with the usual restrictions and expectations on men.

No, it's not even funny anymore.  Hillary Clinton is bossing people around, women are more than 50% of the voters, so slowly women should also be held responsible.

If you want a friggin' society, then you finally have to come out from mother's skirt, or the skirt of judges and chivalrist law-makers, as the case may be.

Either you are a stupid girl, or a person on this planet.  Unfortunately, feminists want both: Stupid, unknowing girl when it suits them, and sentient being on this planet when it suits them.

I certainly don't want to generalize to all women (and it would violate the rules of this board), but I have seen that type of behavior myself among many women I have known.  Manipulation.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:09 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
When I was a young girl, I used to read the paper.  Jobs were classified into:

HELP WANTED - MALE
HELP WANTED - FEMALE

When I was a teen, I decided I wanted to be what we called a "disc jockey".  And, trust me, I had the skills.  But I was female and, at the time, women in radio were few and far between.  But I decided I would go for it anyway.

I went to the broadcasting school, and the director of admissions was shocked.   He had only glanced at my last name when he looked over his appointments for the day, and did not expect to see a 17 year old girl show up.   But after he listened to me, he was very impressed and why?  Because he knew I could do the job.  And I was accepted into the school - and he was actually excited about the possibilities.


Had it been against the law for you to do so, though, none of that would've mattered.  And that's my point.

Quote from: "contrarymary"
Men are inherently fair creatures - more so, IMHO, than many women.


LOL, I haven't noticed that--I haven't noticed *any* brand or flavor of human being showing a stronger fairness streak than any other.  

Quote from: "contrarymary"
Most will give someone a chance as long as she or he doesn't expect special privileges or exceptions.  Did those who were dead set against women in formerly men-only jobs need a gentle push to become more open-minded?  Yes.


;) Do you define legal action as a gentle push?

Quote from: "contrarymary"
And the fault doesn't lie with them, it lies with US.  Too many women are self-entitled, self-absorbed lazy bitches who want everything handed to them on a silver Vera Wang platter (which, of course, someone ELSE paid for).  Don't get me wrong - many are not BUT my perception is that the number of selfish women who will lie and manipulate when they don't get their way is growing.....


Nah.  I think the number of selfish, self-entitled, self-absorbed lazy bitches has been pretty much constant throughout history.  ;)
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:11 PM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Some men, perhaps. But not the majority.


I hope that's true.


I suspect that is the most dishonest statement you have ever made here thus far, lkanneg. Men can bear the thought, but can the women who feel like you bear the thought of rejection when they cannot meet the required physical expectation?


Sure.  It's *my* failing then, that I can either fix, or accept.  Not someone else's stupid prejudices stopping me from reaching my potential.  Much easier to cope with the former.  But perhaps that's just the way it is for me.  Perhaps others feel differently.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:14 PM
Quote from: "Factory"
One aspect of this issue that seems to be missing from the dialog:

The political ramifications and the "optics" involved with women in combat situations.

The political elite and military commanders are not living in a vacuum here folks.  They know, like everyone else here, that images of dead and dismembered women from the "battlefield" will instantly kill a large measure of support from the American public, regardless of the merits of the actual campaign.  


 :roll:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 12, 2005, 12:17 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Some men, perhaps. But not the majority.


I hope that's true.


I suspect that is the most dishonest statement you have ever made here thus far, lkanneg. Men can bear the thought, but can the women who feel like you bear the thought of rejection when they cannot meet the required physical expectation?


Sure.  It's *my* failing then, that I can either fix, or accept.  Not someone else's stupid prejudices stopping me from reaching my potential.  Much easier to cope with the former.  But perhaps that's just the way it is for me.  Perhaps others feel differently.


errrmmm...no, it has nothing to do with prejiduces, lkanneg, you still fail to accept and thus will not fix rather spill out cries of prejiduce and foul play. You either make it or you don't. I fail to see why it becomes somebody's prejiduce when you fail to meet the mark physically or mentally and not make the team, the fire squad or the police force. The male Barney phifes of the world don't get a free pass, they're told NO. And I agree, why not you?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 12, 2005, 12:17 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Nah.  I think the number of selfish, self-entitled, self-absorbed lazy bitches has been pretty much constant throughout history.  ;)


It's promoted today with the "you go girl" brand of feminism and empowerment.  And money from the government.  Just check out the budget of the Department of Education (which should be abolished).
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 12, 2005, 12:21 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Factory"
One aspect of this issue that seems to be missing from the dialog:

The political ramifications and the "optics" involved with women in combat situations.

The political elite and military commanders are not living in a vacuum here folks.  They know, like everyone else here, that images of dead and dismembered women from the "battlefield" will instantly kill a large measure of support from the American public, regardless of the merits of the actual campaign.  


 :roll:


I concur, this is true regardless of rolling eyeballs and rants otherwise. And this is a double edged sword that gets the attention of feminists, chivilrous men and alike. Sometimes the truth is just too hard to bare on those who cannot accept it. Most of the conflict lies within and not with others, though taking it out on others is easiest. At least that has been my observation of feminist mannerisms.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 12, 2005, 12:23 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"

LOL, I haven't noticed that--I haven't noticed *any* brand or flavor of human being showing a stronger fairness streak than any other.  ;)


Chivalry plays a large part in opening ones eyes to the obvious of which you conveniently ignore, lkanneg. Take a look around, that is more than fair.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:24 PM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
It almost seems...like men really can't *bear* the thought that a woman can meet the same physical and mental standards for a job.


Some men, perhaps. But not the majority.


I hope that's true.


I suspect that is the most dishonest statement you have ever made here thus far, lkanneg. Men can bear the thought, but can the women who feel like you bear the thought of rejection when they cannot meet the required physical expectation?


Sure.  It's *my* failing then, that I can either fix, or accept.  Not someone else's stupid prejudices stopping me from reaching my potential.  Much easier to cope with the former.  But perhaps that's just the way it is for me.  Perhaps others feel differently.


errrmmm...no, it has nothing to do with prejiduces, lkanneg, you still fail to accept and thus will not fix rather spill out cries of prejiduce and foul play. You either make it or you don't. I fail to see why it becomes somebody's prejiduce when you fail to meet the mark physically or mentally and not make the team, the fire squad or the police force. The male Barney phifes of the world don't get a free pass, they're told NO. And I agree, why not you?


;)  When I fail to meet the mark...the MALE mark...physically or mentally in any test or evaluation in my lifetime...I'll re-examine the situation.  Hasn't happened yet, which probably explains a lot about my impatience with the cries of, "But women CAN'T...!"  

Helpful clearing-up point:  It is prejudice to refuse to even let a woman attempt to pass an entrance exam because she's female.  It isn't prejudice when a woman fails an entrance exam because she's too weak, slow or stupid to pass it.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:28 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
PS

Be scared of anything larger and stronger than you that hates you.  Be very scared.


If I'd taken that advice, I'd have a sorry life.  ;)

Be a *little* afraid.  It sharpens the senses and the self-preservation instinct.  But only a little.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 12, 2005, 12:29 PM
Show me where women are refused to take an entrance exam, lkanneg. Spinning the situation with "male mark" is ridiculous, entrance exams are male to the weaker male too, the standard is the standard fr EVERYONE, period. Trouble is, when he is told NO, he has to go away. When you get told no, you can cry foul play and then the liberal poop hits the perverbial fan....the bar then is lowered, you get the job anyway....and still we read about how badly women have it as a class.


It is boring, very very boring. Almost as annoying as a child who asks the "Why mommy why, why? why?"...and you know the kid isn't half interested in "why" at all.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Sep 12, 2005, 12:29 PM
Quote
Helpful clearing-up point: It is prejudice to refuse to even let a woman attempt to pass an entrance exam because she's female. It isn't prejudice when a woman fails an entrance exam because she's too weak, slow or stupid to pass it.


And what is it when standards are lowered to make sure the women who are too weak, slow or stupid can pass it?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:30 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
Quote
Helpful clearing-up point: It is prejudice to refuse to even let a woman attempt to pass an entrance exam because she's female. It isn't prejudice when a woman fails an entrance exam because she's too weak, slow or stupid to pass it.


And what is it when standards are lowered to make sure the women who are too weak, slow or stupid can pass it?


Wrong.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Sep 12, 2005, 12:31 PM
BINGO!

But that's what feminism has brought us. But you as a feminist deny it.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:31 PM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Show me where women are refused to take an entrance exam, lkanneg.


In the Army women cannot serve in the following: infantry, armor, cannon field artillery and short range air defense artillery.
In the Navy women are excluded from Submarine Warfare, Special Warfare (SEAL) and ratings particular to submarine service such as fire control technician, missile technician, and one aspect of sonar technician.
The Marine Corps assignments closed to women are infantry, armor, field artillery, security force guard protecting nuclear material, and several positions related to armored, amphibious, assault units and fleet antiterrorism security teams.
Air Force positions closed or restricted are Combat Control, Special Operations Forces, Rotary Aircraft, TAC Pararescue, and Weather assignments with infantry or Special Forces.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 12:32 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
BINGO!

But that's what feminism has brought us. But you as a feminist deny it.


Actually, I as a feminist have done nothing but talk on this board about what a bad idea separate standards for the genders are.  ;)
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 12, 2005, 12:35 PM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Factory"
One aspect of this issue that seems to be missing from the dialog:

The political ramifications and the "optics" involved with women in combat situations.

The political elite and military commanders are not living in a vacuum here folks.  They know, like everyone else here, that images of dead and dismembered women from the "battlefield" will instantly kill a large measure of support from the American public, regardless of the merits of the actual campaign.  


 :roll:


I concur, this is true regardless of rolling eyeballs and rants otherwise. And this is a double edged sword that gets the attention of feminists, chivilrous men and alike. Sometimes the truth is just too hard to bare on those who cannot accept it. Most of the conflict lies within and not with others, though taking it out on others is easiest. At least that has been my observation of feminist mannerisms.


I'd just like to know what the rolling eyes are supposed to mean....did I not make a "valid" point here?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 12, 2005, 12:36 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Show me where women are refused to take an entrance exam, lkanneg.


In the Army women cannot serve in the following: infantry, armor, cannon field artillery and short range air defense artillery.
In the Navy women are excluded from Submarine Warfare, Special Warfare (SEAL) and ratings particular to submarine service such as fire control technician, missile technician, and one aspect of sonar technician.
The Marine Corps assignments closed to women are infantry, armor, field artillery, security force guard protecting nuclear material, and several positions related to armored, amphibious, assault units and fleet antiterrorism security teams.
Air Force positions closed or restricted are Combat Control, Special Operations Forces, Rotary Aircraft, TAC Pararescue, and Weather assignments with infantry or Special Forces.


If it has been determined through study, years of women in the military that either physically, mentally or the cost to others is more detrimental to have women in these positions that is the way it goes. To change that standard to suit YOU and risk the lives of men who are the majority and are the stronger more apt being in combat is simply self grandstanding at best. Look at the mob in the pics posted of the battle with Gonz....obviously the majority cannot handle it, have been proven unable to handle it or endure it. The cost is too high, and not to be questioned over hurt feelings.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 12, 2005, 12:39 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
BINGO!

But that's what feminism has brought us. But you as a feminist deny it.


Actually, I as a feminist have done nothing but talk on this board about what a bad idea separate standards for the genders are.  ;)


When it suits feminists to have the same standards they're all for it. To expect hold positions they are not capable of because they have been barred from them for the obvious is unthinkable, and then it's time to say "I want the same deal as men"....but really, it's a smoke show.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Sep 12, 2005, 12:40 PM
Quote
Actually, I as a feminist have done nothing but talk on this board about what a bad idea separate standards for the genders are.  


Then how do you reconcile the fact that you are a feminist but some things that feminism has brought about are wrong? You can't think something is wrong and at the same time support a belief system that thinks it is not wrong.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 12, 2005, 12:57 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
BINGO!

But that's what feminism has brought us. But you as a feminist deny it.


Actually, I as a feminist have done nothing but talk on this board about what a bad idea separate standards for the genders are.  ;)


"But ...but I never did that...other feminists did"....

How exactly does your contention (here) that the same standards should apply to both sexes...how EXACTLY does that refute that entry standards for things like FD, PD, and other jobs have been dramatically revised to allow for "greater female participation"?  Or that these very things were (and still are) front and centre in the feminist ideology?

See, I can advocate for whatever I like when I am the receipient of special treatment, and then blast those "misguided souls" for thier mistakes for the pleasure (all while still retaining the benefits of said discrimination).  But see, you don't even do that much.  Time and time again examples of INSTITUTIONAL discrimiation based ENTIRELY on sex are trotted out for your perusal...and without fail, you seem to find a way to avoid speaking to the issue, or even really acknowledging that you even understand the point being made.  What I am curious about then, is how this fits in with your plan to enlighten yourself, or possibly change views you have....or maybe even "enlighten" those of us here on the board.

It seems to me you're taking an inordinate delight in deliberately missing the mark on threads, or smiling your way through a post that is very thinly veiled contempt.  Truly not the mark of someone in the throes of intellectual discourse.  Much much closer to the female character of a soap opera that "spars" with another female character in a soap opera...catty, snide, but carefully worded so as to avoid taking an indefensible position.

Is this a personal attack?  No, most emphatically no, I'm just curious how your (self-stated) reason for being here meshes with the (very evident) lack of desire to even listen to anything but the most literal.  If you are here simply to piss us all off, I would hope a little honesty might finally be coaxed out of you...it's not a big deal really, we get lots of women here that simply want to rub our noses in it so to speak.  You can go ahead and admit it.

Either way...I'm having fun.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 01:42 PM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Show me where women are refused to take an entrance exam, lkanneg.


In the Army women cannot serve in the following: infantry, armor, cannon field artillery and short range air defense artillery.
In the Navy women are excluded from Submarine Warfare, Special Warfare (SEAL) and ratings particular to submarine service such as fire control technician, missile technician, and one aspect of sonar technician.
The Marine Corps assignments closed to women are infantry, armor, field artillery, security force guard protecting nuclear material, and several positions related to armored, amphibious, assault units and fleet antiterrorism security teams.
Air Force positions closed or restricted are Combat Control, Special Operations Forces, Rotary Aircraft, TAC Pararescue, and Weather assignments with infantry or Special Forces.


If it has been determined through study, years of women in the military that either physically, mentally or the cost to others is more detrimental to have women in these positions that is the way it goes.


It hasn't been.  I admire your attempt to find some credibility in those refusing to allow women to enter into those jobs, though.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: no2fembots on Sep 12, 2005, 01:53 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
It hasn't been.  I admire your attempt to find some credibility in those refusing to allow women to enter into those jobs, though.


First point: WRONGWRONGWRONG!  Maybe Gonzokid and some others who have already posted info you want to deny can hit you over the head again with even MORE published research.

Second point: Do you really admire his attempt to "find some credibility..."

Don't make me laugh...  How weasily...yucch!
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Sep 12, 2005, 02:16 PM
Quote

"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1.


Now why should the military spend much more money to train female recruits for infantry, when the majority of them will not pass the training?  Yes, on the one hand you can say because women deserve to try out (to be equal and all), but if the military is only getting a return of 1 recruit to 103 who try out, should the military force upon itself money wasting and effectiveness hampering exercises just to be politically correct?  Or should they do what is most cost effective and operationally justified?

Serious question.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 02:18 PM
Quote from: "Factory"

How exactly does your contention (here) that the same standards should apply to both sexes...how EXACTLY does that refute that entry standards for things like FD, PD, and other jobs have been dramatically revised to allow for "greater female participation"?  Or that these very things were (and still are) front and centre in the feminist ideology?


Now, that's something I've always been interested in...who *was* responsible for the lowering of physical standards for women in jobs such as firefighting and military occupational specialties...was it really *feminists?*  And why isn't this universal, as in, police departments have the same physical standards for both sexes...astronauts have the same physical standards for both sexes...what is the reasoning *there?*  

Quote from: "Factory"
See, I can advocate for whatever I like when I am the receipient of special treatment, and then blast those "misguided souls" for thier mistakes for the pleasure (all while still retaining the benefits of said discrimination).  But see, you don't even do that much.  Time and time again examples of INSTITUTIONAL discrimiation based ENTIRELY on sex are trotted out for your perusal...and without fail, you seem to find a way to avoid speaking to the issue, or even really acknowledging that you even understand the point being made.  What I am curious about then, is how this fits in with your plan to enlighten yourself, or possibly change views you have....or maybe even "enlighten" those of us here on the board.


I have no plans to enlighten anybody on this board...psychologically, I really don't see that as a possibility.  As far as enlightening myself...I had high hopes, but they're not working out well.  When I make a statement that is not what others here have decided is the "feminist party line," I am reviled for it.  When I make a  statement that is what others here have decided is the feminist party line, I am reviled for it.  <shrug>  The idea exchange requires that people debate my *ideas,* which they are not; they are debating the fact that I am a feminist.  Sort of like if I answered everything you guys said with either, "That's just what MRAs like to spout!" or "That's not what MRAs usually spout, what are you trying to pull?"  I could cover every single statement you could possibly make with either of those two responses, but how much idea exchange would occur?  Zero.  Bor-ing.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 02:22 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
BINGO!

But that's what feminism has brought us. But you as a feminist deny it.


Actually, I as a feminist have done nothing but talk on this board about what a bad idea separate standards for the genders are.  ;)


Actually, you as a feminist have defended affirmative action for women, a seperate and double standard for genders. ;)

You believe in paying lip service until the rubber meets the road.  The word we use for that is "Hypocrite."
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 02:23 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote

"After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1.


Now why should the military spend much more money to train female recruits for infantry, when the majority of them will not pass the training?  Yes, on the one hand you can say because women deserve to try out (to be equal and all), but if the military is only getting a return of 1 recruit to 103 who try out, should the military force upon itself money wasting and effectiveness hampering exercises just to be politically correct?  Or should they do what is most cost effective and operationally justified?

Serious question.


Fuckin' a.

Combat is real life, not a social experiment.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 12, 2005, 02:25 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
Quote
Actually, I as a feminist have done nothing but talk on this board about what a bad idea separate standards for the genders are.  


Then how do you reconcile the fact that you are a feminist but some things that feminism has brought about are wrong? You can't think something is wrong and at the same time support a belief system that thinks it is not wrong.


Er, right.  Tell that to Feminists for Life and Catholics for Choice and Log Cabin Republicans and Unitarian Universalists.  

This is getting a wee bit old, but I'll give it one more shot.  I am a feminist who hates male circumcision, supports automatic 50/50 child custody orders and hates ALL double standards, regardless of whom they benefit.  I am a Democrat who is pro capital punishment, anti gun control and who would like to see the size of government reduced.  I am an agnostic who supports neither the forced impostion of religion OR athiesm by the government.  I'm a woman who loves to wear pink, do higher math, get my nails done, change out the seals on a reactor, cuddle children and fire weapons of nearly any description at human-shaped targets.

I suspect I'm not any more diverse than most.  Let's stop trying to pound round people into square holes, shall we?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 02:28 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Show me where women are refused to take an entrance exam, lkanneg.


In the Army women cannot serve in the following: infantry, armor, cannon field artillery and short range air defense artillery.
In the Navy women are excluded from Submarine Warfare, Special Warfare (SEAL) and ratings particular to submarine service such as fire control technician, missile technician, and one aspect of sonar technician.
The Marine Corps assignments closed to women are infantry, armor, field artillery, security force guard protecting nuclear material, and several positions related to armored, amphibious, assault units and fleet antiterrorism security teams.
Air Force positions closed or restricted are Combat Control, Special Operations Forces, Rotary Aircraft, TAC Pararescue, and Weather assignments with infantry or Special Forces.



And amen, and well they shouldn't.

Fred Reed's articles clearly point out why.  And include cites.

Of course, the typical feminist response will be to ignore such things which contradict their preconcieved  and erroneous worldview.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 02:36 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Er, right.  Tell that to Feminists for Life and Catholics for Choice and Log Cabin Republicans and Unitarian Universalists.  

As a Catholic, I can tell you that a "Catholic for Choice" who has so much as voted for a politician based on their pro-abortion views has incurred an automatic excommunication latę sententię, incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge, and is no longer a Catholic in good standing.

This is according to Canon Law.

Talk about something you know something about.

Quote
This is getting a wee bit old, but I'll give it one more shot.  I am a feminist who hates male circumcision, supports automatic 50/50 child custody orders and hates ALL double standards, regardless of whom they benefit.  I am a Democrat who is pro capital punishment, anti gun control and who would like to see the size of government reduced.  I am an agnostic who supports neither the forced impostion of religion OR athiesm by the government.  I'm a woman who loves to wear pink, do higher math, get my nails done, change out the seals on a reactor, cuddle children and fire weapons of nearly any description at human-shaped targets.

I suspect I'm not any more diverse than most.  Let's stop trying to pound round people into square holes, shall we?


Poppycock.  Balderdash.  Bunk.  Grade A, primo bullshit.

This is Humpty Dumpty, "Through the Looking Glass" nonsense where "a word means just what I choose it to mean."  It makes it gibberish.  It's at best a smokescreen, and at worst intellectually shoddy and morally vapid.

Any credible movement, faith, or what have you, has a statement of core principles.  This is what it means to be a part of this movement.  To say "I am A Whatsist" and disagree with the vast majority of their goals and principles, while agreeing with the goals and principles of those that oppose them is ludicrous.  In addition, such institutes also have statements which you are not allowed to believe, advocate, work for, and so on; and still call yourself one of them.  For one such example, I seriously doubt any Democrat who went around voting for mostly Republican candidates would be allowed by most of their brethren to call themselves a Democrat In Good Standing. (And if they are, no wonder the fucking party is Tweedledummer to the GOP's Tweedledum).

To ask someone to sit back and accept that is outrageous and laughable.

The common tactic of modern feminists, too, is PRECISELY what you do.  They refuse to elucidate where they stand, because it is indefensible, morally, ethically, and intellectually.  It gives them a cheap out - point out an excess - even something like a misandric law that was written by, campaigned for, lobbied for, and signed to the great approbation of FEMINISTS - and it's "Oh, I don't believe that.  How sad.  *sigh*  Not the feminism I signed up for.  *I* don't know *ANY* feminists who believe in that! *sigh* ;)" and in the meantime it's follow along like a lemming, still writing the checks, writing the letters, subscribing to the newsletters, attending the rallies, giving a "You go, GURRRRL!"

It's cultic behavior.  And if it wasn't so sick, you'd be laughed at.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Sep 12, 2005, 02:44 PM
Quote
I suspect I'm not any more diverse than most. Let's stop trying to pound round people into square holes, shall we?


Thanks for answering. I was under the impression that you were a 'hardliner' feminist that adhered to the party line.

So, would it be safe to say that there are things about feminism that you would like to see revamped or thrown out? Do you try to influence (in whatever way an individual is possible to) the direction feminism is heading?

For instance, when the topic of women entering formerly male-only occupations comes up when you talk to other feminists do you try to explain to them why you are against lowered/double standards? What kind of reaction do you get from them?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 12, 2005, 02:52 PM
Quote
So...where does this leave me, if the world is to be ordered that women should be the only ones doing the things that embody "women's strengths" and men should be the only ones doing the things that embody "men's strengths?" Where does this leave others? In a world where women can't be soldiers and engineers and men can't be primary caregivers and teachers of small children..?


That's not what I'm saying, lkanneg .  
If one can meet the criteria, then one should go for it. If the restriction on women in certain jobs in the military is lifted, what's next? I think we all know what's next.

l, I love women.  I am one.   I enjoy them - I understand them.  But I love men too.  I wrongly perceived men as the enemy for too many years, and that perception was due to being around some rather abusive men.  I never knew much about feminism, but kind of jumped on the bandwagon for a few years.  Then, raising my children and surviving two bad marriages took precedence over exploring anything else.  

Now that I have internet access, the information is out there I see what feminism is really all about, and I want nothing to do with it.  It's not about fairness - it's about tearing men down and stripping them, rendering them powerless.  How, in any way shape or form, does this make up for any real or perceived injustices over the years?

 Things have gotten completely out of hand - it must stop now.   Being a woman, I truly can't say I understand the pain of men who have been injured by the feminist agenda, but I see it. It's real.  These are not men who hate women.  These are men who, like me, want fairness.  

I honestly can't understand what you feel there is left to accomplish.  In fact, more than a bit of what feminists have put in place need to be undone, or at least tweaked.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 12, 2005, 03:14 PM
Ikanneg's capacity to ignore physical facts is very suspicious- she also conveniently ignores any post which contains said facts

The military bars women from combat positions for biological reasons- men are better at it.

Either deal with it or shut up about it Ikanneg, it is a complete joke reading your posts...

I will be happy to post a small sample of a HUGE body of research available
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 12, 2005, 03:15 PM
BRITISH STUDY FINDS FEMALE SOLDIERS "TOO WEAK" FOR LAND COMBAT  
1/14/2002 12:58:35 PM  

Problems with Physical Capabilities and Unit Cohesion    
An extensive study ordered by British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has reportedly recommended that women should not be allowed to fight in the front line. Citing evidence gathered over 18 months, the "Combat Effectiveness Gender Study" concluded that females lack the strength and stamina needed to serve in the infantry, armored regiments, Royal Marines or the RAF Regiment, the Air Force's infantry unit.

In compiling the study for review by the Chiefs of Staff, British Army officials gathered information from several other countries with gender-integrated armed forces, and carried out tests of physical capabilities in Wales. According to the London Sunday Times, June 24, 2001, the women performed comparatively poorly in physical tasks:

· In a test requiring soldiers to carry 90 lbs. of artillery shells over measured distances, the male failure rate was 20%. The female failure rate was 70%.

· In a 12.5-mile route march carrying 60 lbs. of equipment, followed by target practice simulating conditions under fire, men failed in 17% of cases. Women failed in 48%.

· Females were generally slower in simulated combat exercises involving lengthy "fire and move" situations, in which participants had to sprint from one position to another in full battle dress.

· In close-quarter battle tests, including hand-to-hand combat, women suffered much higher injury rates.

Negative findings in the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study are even more significant in view of the fact that test exercises reportedly had been so diluted and watered down that they amounted to little more than "aggressive camping." (Electronic Telegraph, Mar. 26, 2001) According to Brig. Seymour Monro, the Army's Director of Infantry, tasks that women soldiers were not physically capable of performing had been made easier or dropped from the trials.

Another military source told the Telegraph that women were not capable of a number of tasks under battlefield conditions, such as digging themselves into hard ground under fire. "The girls could not do it. So they decided to reduce the level of the tests for everybody, which kept it gender neutral but meant that of course the girls did OK." Heavy weapons and tanks were not used in the trials.

According to Army Times, a British medical report released in June of 2001 found that the rate of injuries among military women in co-ed training had tripled to 23 per 1,000 in 1996, from a 1992 rate of 8 per 1,000. (June 25, 2001) On January 3, 2002, an Army doctor confirmed that female soldiers were paying for "equal opportunities" with a much higher risk of injury.

In addition to shortcomings in physical strength, the report said that the cohesion of frontline units suffers when women are introduced, because men's behavior becomes "more instinctive and less professional." The finding mirrored testimony presented to America's 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services by instructors who teach Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) techniques. SERE trainers from Fairchild AFB, WA, said that it was necessary to "desensitize" men whose stronger reaction to simulated violence against women could be exploited by an enemy holding male and female captives.

A prominent British feminist, defense minister Baroness Symons, argued in a magazine interview that military men should have instincts to protect female colleagues drilled out of them. "It is a question of training men so that in those circumstances [combat] they will not protect somebody else before doing their primary duty just on the basis of the gender of the person." A former member of the British Equal Opportunity Commission, Baroness Symons also expressed the hope that within 30 years the services will consist of 51% women, and that a woman will become Chief of the Defence Staff. Senior Army commanders were highly critical of that view. (London Sunday Times, Jan. 14, 2001)

When the "Combat Effectiveness Gender Study" was initiated, it was widely expected that the Army's field trials would demonstrate that women were physically capable of serving in land combat units. Defence Minister Geoff Hoon previously had expressed support for the idea. During the 2001 elections, some Labour Party leaders questioned the premise that the armed forces exist to defend the United Kingdom and project power around the world. Instead, some said the military was a kind of human rights agency, and that "warfighting does not represent the primary function of our Armed Services." (Electronic Telegraph Mar. 26, 2001)

The September 11, 2001, terrorist Attack on America seems to have changed that attitude dramatically. According to sources close to the situation, the drive to assign women to British land combat units has come to a halt.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 12, 2005, 03:16 PM
Quote
Had it been against the law for you to do so, though, none of that would've mattered. And that's my point.


But it wasn't against the law.  It was just something that not many had done before.  If I had gone through with it, and met up with discrimination, I'd have handled it - and I believe I would have succeeded.  I honestly believe that.  Yes, some "consciousness raising" needed to be done, but affirmative action?  WTF?  I make my own way, thank you very much, and I am offended by those who feel that I need special treatment.  I do need help, on occassion, with lifting, but then again my boss, a man, needs help with countless items (more to do with morale and admin work), so it's a trade off.

Maybe, if this were 30 years ago, I would not be permitted to be a store manager - and now I am (even though I'm only a first assistant, there are many women managers in my company).  But I thank the trailblazers for my position, the women who were brave enough to go for it, and the men who supported and trained them.  If I found out I was there only because of some sort of quota, I would be so very disappointed.  Worse than disappointed.  I'd start questioning myself and my abilities.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 12, 2005, 03:16 PM
CO-ED TRAINING DAMAGES HEALTH OF WOMEN SOLDIERS  
1/3/2002 10:57:38 AM  

British Army Doctor Confirms Findings  
A British Army doctor has confirmed that female soldiers are paying for "equal opportunities" with a much higher risk of injury than men during basic training. Writing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Lt. Col. Ian Gemmell noted that women's rates of injury doubled when co-ed basic training was introduced, due to differences in strength, bone mass, and stride length. For men, the proportion of discharges caused by stress fractures and back pain remained below 1.5%. For women, however, discharges rose from 4.6% to 11.1% under the co-ed training regime. As previously reported in CMR Notes (Feb. 1999), The Commander of Britain's largest basic training base at Pirbright, near Surrey, restored single-gender training after a one-year test. Lt. Col. Simon Vandeleur told the London Sunday Times (Feb. 8, 1999), that restoration of all-female platoons reduced women's injury rates by 50%, and first-time pass rates increased from 50% to 70%.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 12, 2005, 03:24 PM
Israeli women won't see combat
Study finds females can't lift as much, march as far as males

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 20, 2003
2:55 p.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A military study conducted by the Israeli army has concluded women are a weaker sex, which means they will continue to be barred from most combat duties.

According to the study's findings reported in the Washington Times, women safely can carry 40 percent of their body weight compared with 55 percent for men. Because military-age women weigh 33 pounds less than men on average, the total weight-lifting disparity between the sexes amounts to 44 pounds on average.


Israel Defense Forces soldiers

In terms of endurance, the study found while men could handle 55-mile marches, any trek longer than 32 miles was found to be too arduous for women. Researchers attributed this to the fact that the amount of oxygen-carrying hemoglobin in women's blood was more than 10 percent lower than in men's blood.

The Times reports Israeli army doctors assessing these limitations recommend women not serve in front-line infantry positions, artillery units or tank crews.


Israel Defense Forces tank


This comes as the Israeli government has called up 10 battalions of reserve soldiers to handle the escalating violence in the region.

The army study mirrors the earlier findings of Israeli scholar Martin van Creveld, a specialist in international conflict and author of the book "Men, Women and War," who found that women lacked the physical strength needed for fighting at close quarters and that their relative weakness could, in some cases, put themselves and their comrades in unjustifiable danger.

Van Creveld concluded sending women into frontline combat units would reduce efficiency, increase costs and could prove "criminal." His opinion largely swayed British officials in their 2001 decision not to lift the ban on women in combat.

The Israeli army study also fuels the long-simmering debate over the role of female servicewomen in the U.S. military. Proponents of women in combat historically point to the experience of Israeli servicewomen who fought alongside men in the 1948 independence war as an example to be emulated.

Retired Navy Capt. Lory Manning, director of the Center for Women in Uniform for the Women's Research and Education Institute, argues some women are strong enough and physically capable of serving in infantry and Special Forces and that, given training, those who aren't can make up for their weaknesses.

Manning cites British studies in which women were called upon to run six miles carrying 55 pounds on their back. After approximately three months of special conditioning, they could do it.

"The only difference between men and women is that you have to invest more time and training for women," Manning told WorldNetDaily.

Citing anecdotal evidence, van Creveld calls the lore of female "Amazon" soldiers myths.

"There is no more reason to believe they ever existed any more than Barbarella or Wonderwoman," he told the London Sunday Telegraph.

Van Creveld, who has studied the historical experiences of women in the military dating back to the Roman era, works to "explode the myth" about Israeli women in combat serving as ably as men. During the 1948 independence war, for example, women only served a brief couple of weeks on the frontlines before a group was ambushed and the desecration of their bodies prompted officials to sideline women warriors.

Israel is the only country in the world to have compulsory military service for women. While men must serve three years in the Israel Defense Forces, all women are required to serve 21 months.

Despite a 1995 Israeli court ruling that struck down the "men-only" rule for combat units, women have not served in combat since 1948, and integration into combat-support platoons has been slow. According to IDF statistics, 84 percent of female soldiers still serve in administrative roles with only 1 percent training for combat roles, and 82 percent of female soldiers have had no weapons training.

Israeli servicewomen point to their sisters-in-arms in America to push for further integration in Israeli forces. Since the elimination in 1994 of the United States Department of Defense "Risk Rule," which held that women could not be placed in combat-support units that had "significant risk of capture," American servicewomen have been serving among combat-engineer companies on the ground, populating combatant ships and sitting in the cockpits of jets, bombers and Apache attack helicopters.

"In the U.S. Army, you see the girls going everywhere and doing all things," a 20-year-old Israeli trooper told the Austin American-Statesman. "I know it sounds bad, but one day I hope they'll transfer us to the hot places, too. I want to have a chance to prove myself and show everyone what I've learned."

"We are a nation that has to take war seriously," van Creveld testified in 1992 for a U.S. presidential commission studying the ramifications of allowing women in combat. "We are proud of the fact that we have not had women serve in combat [since 1948] even in the most desperate of times."

Military advocates opposed to women serving in combat in the U.S. welcome the Israeli army study as additional ammunition for their fight.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public-policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues, and a member of WND's Speakers Bureau, said the disparity in physical strength between men and women matters. She pointed to the Army's fielding of a new rucksack for soldiers estimated to weigh 120 pounds when loaded to full capacity.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was the first combat test for the new Modular Lightweight Load-bearing Equipment, or MOLLE. The Army Times reported the excessive weight of the rucksack hampered a 101st Airborne Division air assault in May as "infantrymen staggered under the load."

"If women can't carry their own backpacks, then men must carry them, which adds to their burden. The physical limitations are practical realities," Donnelly told WorldNetDaily.

Donnelly recently launched a petition drive calling on President George W. Bush to roll back Clinton-era "social-engineering policies" she says undermine readiness, discipline and morale.

The "Americans for the Military" petition, which has gained approximately 15,000 signatures, asks Bush to direct Pentagon officials to "objectively review and revise social policies" such as:


Assignments of female soldiers in or near land combat units with a high risk of capture;

Admittedly inefficient co-ed basic training;

Prolonged family separations and pregnancy policies that detract from readiness;

Gender-based recruiting "goals" and quotas that hurt morale and increase costs.
Donnelly hopes to present the petition in a personal meeting with Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. While she has met with White House officials, no meeting is yet scheduled
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 12, 2005, 03:32 PM
1992 PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF WOMEN IN THE ARMED FORCES  
12/12/2001 8:53:00 PM  

The Case Against Women in Combat  
Summarizes reasons why a majority of presidential commisioners voted to retain or reinstate the exemption of women from close combat units that directly engage the enemy on land, sea, and in the air.


GROUND COMBAT - SPECIAL FORCES


The Commission recommended that women be excluded from direct land combat units and positions, and that the existing service policies concerning direct land combat exclusions be codified. In a separate action, the Commission also recommended that Special Operations Forces remain closed to women, and that the DoD Risk Rule be retained.


Commissioners signing the Alternative Views section recommended that the Risk Rule be maintained for all the services, including the Navy, and that Army exclusion policies should continue to apply to multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and field artillery units.


1. All branches of the Armed Forces play an important role in determining the outcome of ground combat, but the ground combat soldier faces unique challenges and demands normally not imposed on the soldier in combat support and combat service support roles.



■ As defined by Title 10 U.S. Code Sec. 3062, the "Army shall be organized, trained and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations on land."


■ The Commission heard considerable testimony that despite technological advances, ground combat is no more refined, no less barbaric and no less physically demanding than it has been throughout history. (Testimony of LTG Binford Peay, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, 6 April. See Alt. Views, p. 62)


■ Combat veterans testified that the responsibility to actually engage the enemy in a life-and-death struggle is considerably different than the experience of being fired upon or in danger. (Testimony of Sgt. Maj. Harold Overstreet, USMC, 26 June. See Alt. Views, p. 62)


■ A number of Army and Marine Desert Storm combat veterans said women should not be assigned to ground combat because the physiological requirements over time are extreme, and the group is only as good as its weakest member.


■ VIII Airborne Corps infantry soldiers demonstrated the necessity of evacuating one another with a single-man "fireman's carry" if a fully-loaded fellow soldier is wounded while under fire. They said that other soldiers are needed to provide protective cover. (Fort Bragg Trip Report, 16 June)


2. The ground combatant relies heavily on his physical strength and stamina to survive, fight, and win. The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:



■ Women are shorter, have less muscle mass and weigh less than men, placing them at a distinct disadvantage when performing tasks requiring a high level of muscular strength and aerobic capacity, like ground combat. Female dynamic upper torso muscular strength is approximately 50-60 percent that of males. (CF 2.1.1, 2.1.2)


■ Female aerobic capacity is approximately 70-75 percent that of males. In terms of military significance, at the same marching velocity and carrying the same load, the average woman works at a higher percentage of her aerobic capacity. This means that women cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue. (CF 2.1.3)


■ In a 1988 study of Army recruits, woman were found to be more vulnerable to exercise-induced injuries than men, with 2.13 times greater risk for lower extremity injuries, and 4.71 times greater risk for stress fractures. Men sustained 99 days of limited duty due to injury, while women incurred 481 days of limited duty. (CF 2.1.5)


■ The experience of other countries shows little evidence that women are suited for ground combat. For example, of 103 women recruited for infantry training after Canada repealed its combat rules in 1989, only one woman succeeded in meeting the physical requirements necessary to complete the training. (CF 2.5.4B, 1.79; International Trip Report, 16-25 September)


3. In a test of ROTC cadets using the standard Army physical fitness test, it was found that the upper quintile of women achieved scores equivalent of the bottom quintile of men. (Testimony of Lt. Col. William J. Gregor, USA Ret., Military Science Chair, University of Michigan; CF 1.39a)



■ Only 3.4% achieved a score equal to the male mean score. On the push-up test, only 7 percent of women could meet a score that was exceeded by 78 percent of the men. (CF 1.39c,d)


■ Few women can meet the male mean standard. Men below the standard can improve their scores, whereas the women who have met the standard have already achieved a maximum level beyond which they cannot improve. (CF 1.39f)


■ Age also makes a difference: A 20 to 30 year old woman has about the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year old man. Because women begin losing bone mass at an earlier age than men, and are more susceptible to orthopedic injuries, those initially selected for the combat arms would probably not survive to career-end. (CF 1.39h)


4. In the likely situation that women were unable to carry their full load without male assistance, unit morale and cohesion would suffer. (Testimony of Staff Sgt. Barry Bell, USMC 7 August. See Alt. Views, p. 64)



■ Direct combat units have few, if any, personal comforts comparable to those available in support units. Lack of privacy in combat units could result in morale and cohesion problems when normal and widely accepted standards of personal modesty must routinely be sacrificed in wartime or peacetime training environments. (Numerous witnesses)


■ Research shows that units lacking discipline and cohesion are more likely to suffer excess casualties and perhaps even defeat. (Testimony of Dr. William Darryl Henderson, 26 June)


5. Because of close quarters and related factors, the effect of inappropriate sexual relationships would be more serious in combat units.



■ Even if some women are strong enough to handle the physical demands of combat, the introduction of factors such as sexual entanglements and jealousies--even if the women don't invite such attention-- would make the forward commander's job more difficult. (Testimony of RADM Raymond C. Smith, Jr. USN, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, 27 August)


■ As one soldier put it, "This is not Olympic diving. We do not get extra credit for adding an extra degree of difficulty." (Testimony of Lt Col Stephen Smith, 7 August)


■ Sixty-four percent of military respondents who served in mixed gender units during Desert Shield/Storm indicated that there were incidents of sexual activity between men and women in their units. (CF 1. 69c, Roper Military Poll, Q. 27)


■ Sixty-one percent of military respondents who served in Desert Shield/Storm indicated that there were incidents of sexual activity between men and women in their own unit and members of other units. (CF 169d Roper Military Poll, Q.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 12, 2005, 04:09 PM
"So...where does this leave me, if the world is to be ordered that women should be the only ones doing the things that embody "women's strengths" and men should be the only ones doing the things that embody "men's strengths?" Where does this leave others? In a world where women can't be soldiers and engineers and men can't be primary caregivers and teachers of small children..?"

Such a world would be very efficient- intelligent and identity affirming to normal healthy men and women.... but your question is thoughtful and provides insight into your resistance to certain facts

What do we do with exceptions such as yourself? It is understandable that masculine women or feminine men would find the historic and traditional world unsatisfying but for the greater good, and especially in areas of life and death we need to forsake such concerns. There are more then enough areas in our culture where such people can be included without sacrificing either efficiency or standards which are in phase with biological reality.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 12, 2005, 04:36 PM
She's just going to put you on "Ignore", Russ2d.

Sooner or later, anyone who cites facts here is going to be on her passive-aggressive "Ignore" list.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 12, 2005, 04:38 PM
Well, lkanneg, I appreciate all your reponses.   But I just can't match up to your ability to debate. You have an answer for everything,and all I have is my gut feeling that something is terribly awry here, and that if the notion of female privilege continues, we are all going to be up the proverbial creek without the men to paddle for us when we need their help.  

And like it or not, we do.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 12, 2005, 04:59 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
She's just going to put you on "Ignore", Russ2d.

Sooner or later, anyone who cites facts here is going to be on her passive-aggressive "Ignore" list.


Quote from: "contrarymary"
Well, lkanneg, I appreciate all your reponses.   But I just can't match up to your ability to debate. You have an answer for everything,and all I have is my gut feeling that something is terribly awry here, and that if the notion of female privilege continues, we are all going to be up the proverbial creek without the men to paddle for us when we need their help.  

And like it or not, we do.


This is why you are still responded to, Mary.  The minute her sophistry fails her, you will become another person who doesn't have goodwill, and who she won't respond to.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 12, 2005, 05:10 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Factory"

How exactly does your contention (here) that the same standards should apply to both sexes...how EXACTLY does that refute that entry standards for things like FD, PD, and other jobs have been dramatically revised to allow for "greater female participation"?  Or that these very things were (and still are) front and centre in the feminist ideology?


Now, that's something I've always been interested in...who *was* responsible for the lowering of physical standards for women in jobs such as firefighting and military occupational specialties...was it really *feminists?*  And why isn't this universal, as in, police departments have the same physical standards for both sexes...astronauts have the same physical standards for both sexes...what is the reasoning *there?*  

Quote from: "Factory"
See, I can advocate for whatever I like when I am the receipient of special treatment, and then blast those "misguided souls" for thier mistakes for the pleasure (all while still retaining the benefits of said discrimination).  But see, you don't even do that much.  Time and time again examples of INSTITUTIONAL discrimiation based ENTIRELY on sex are trotted out for your perusal...and without fail, you seem to find a way to avoid speaking to the issue, or even really acknowledging that you even understand the point being made.  What I am curious about then, is how this fits in with your plan to enlighten yourself, or possibly change views you have....or maybe even "enlighten" those of us here on the board.


I have no plans to enlighten anybody on this board...psychologically, I really don't see that as a possibility.  As far as enlightening myself...I had high hopes, but they're not working out well.  When I make a statement that is not what others here have decided is the "feminist party line," I am reviled for it.  When I make a  statement that is what others here have decided is the feminist party line, I am reviled for it.  <shrug>  The idea exchange requires that people debate my *ideas,* which they are not; they are debating the fact that I am a feminist.  Sort of like if I answered everything you guys said with either, "That's just what MRAs like to spout!" or "That's not what MRAs usually spout, what are you trying to pull?"  I could cover every single statement you could possibly make with either of those two responses, but how much idea exchange would occur?  Zero.  Bor-ing.



For the umpteenth time, I am debating your statements on thier merit ALONE...and you know it.  So stop making me out to be some kind of guy I'm not.  

The fact is, you have quite frequently stated that you are a feminist, which as a political movement is ENTIRELY culpable in the issues that have pissed us off and marginalized us (by that I mean nearly every single guy on this board, as well as a quite likely huge number of men not on this board).  It's disingenuous...no...it's outright STUPID to come on this board, announce that you ally yourself with the same ideology that created VAST numbers of problems, as well as some (SOME) positive aspects to modern society, and then get miffed because some guy says "You feminists have done..."

Let's grow up a little as a group here...sound fair?

There are a few men here that shock me with thier anger....but take it for what it is...ANGER.  See, that only happens as a result of things...not a cause.  To dismiss thier anger is to tell them they don't matter, and that's not something I am as readily able to do as nearly every woman (let alone feminist) I know.  In my view...plenty of people made an effort to make you (and your views) feel welcome as a matter of debate (I am definitely one of those...hell, I defended you against Gonzo...who I might add is a hell of a smart guy).  What have you done with this welcome?

Discounted everything anyone has said to you as being unimportant...or not YOUR fault....or unproven (at least until the links and corroborating evidence comes in...then you're silent on the matter).

I don't, for one, believe you came here with nefarious motivations (unlike a good number of other posters on this BB), but like many others you may actually be here to listen and THINK.  Unfortunately, this has sadly turned out to not be the case.

And to answer your question...YES, feminist groups are DIRECTLY responsible for the lowering of standards to bring in more women to occupations like PD, FD, etc...  Anyone...and I DO mean anyone, that can read a newspaper can see that.  I won't site...that would REALLY be an insult to the intelligence of the others here on this board....if you don't believe this, well, then there's no way to sway such an entrenched ideology...so why try.

There is much made of this "zero sum game" thing....some believe you can be a feminist and still believe in equal rights between the sexes.  Well, I have YET to see a feminist actually open her FUCKING MOUTH to defend men, let alone stand on the side of equality in any situation where equality means consideration for men...not women.  

(OK, I know YOU do...often I'm sure...but your attitude here is decidedly not the type that would encourage me to believe a statement like that)
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Darth Sidious on Sep 12, 2005, 05:13 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
"So...where does this leave me, if the world is to be ordered that women should be the only ones doing the things that embody "women's strengths" and men should be the only ones doing the things that embody "men's strengths?" Where does this leave others? In a world where women can't be soldiers and engineers and men can't be primary caregivers and teachers of small children..?"

Such a world would be very efficient- intelligent and identity affirming to normal healthy men and women.... but your question is thoughtful and provides insight into your resistance to certain facts

What do we do with exceptions such as yourself? It is understandable that masculine women or feminine men would find the historic and traditional world unsatisfying but for the greater good, and especially in areas of life and death we need to forsake such concerns. There are more then enough areas in our culture where such people can be included without sacrificing either efficiency or standards which are in phase with biological reality.


That is very much my view of the situation.  Bravo!  :D
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 12, 2005, 05:28 PM
Well, I'm only 5'1", and I never took the SATs or GMATs or whatever the hell everyone else here seems to have scored a million on, and I can't even outrun my 16 year old dachshund,  and maybe I could out-debate my grandson (but I'm not so sure), and I'm really kind of klutzy and ditzy.  

And I suppose I should feel badly about that, but I don't, and here's why:

I'm me.

I don't know much, but my heart and mind are open.  I'm willing to learn, to listen, to grow, to apologize, to question, to honestly care....I fuck up a lot....A LOT....but I'm always sorry and I work hard to change.

Maybe I really am a simpleton, but I'd rather have this than anything else in the world.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Darth Sidious on Sep 12, 2005, 05:30 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how anyone can ignore the large body of evidence gonzokid and Russ2d have presented us.

Women do not belong in combat, period.  I do not care if a very few are supposedly capable; there is no compelling reason to give them a chance.  Armies are not supposed to be job fairs.

I am 24 years old, but I am very much below average when it comes to physical strength and stamina, so I am sure I would have no chance of meeting the men's standards.  Why do women who often fall laughably short of these standards go on to become soldiers when I would be shown the door?  I am being discriminated against.  Where is my equal opportunity?  Why can't I be a soldier too?   :evil:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Darth Sidious on Sep 12, 2005, 05:38 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Well, I'm only 5'1", and I never took the SATs or GMATs or whatever the hell everyone else here seems to have scored a million on, and I can't even outrun my 16 year old dachshund,  and maybe I could out-debate my grandson (but I'm not so sure), and I'm really kind of klutzy and ditzy.  

And I suppose I should feel badly about that, but I don't, and here's why:

I'm me.

I don't know much, but my heart and mind are open.  I'm willing to learn, to listen, to grow, to apologize, to question, to honestly care....I fuck up a lot....A LOT....but I'm always sorry and I work hard to change.

Maybe I really am a simpleton, but I'd rather have this than anything else in the world.


I for one do not think you are a simpleton; you are quite probably a good deal wiser than most because you have life in perspective.  What matters in life is not your IQ or SAT scores, it is what good you have accomplished with the abilities and opportunities you have been given.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 12, 2005, 07:20 PM
"Now, that's something I've always been interested in...who *was* responsible for the lowering of physical standards for women in jobs such as firefighting and military occupational specialties...was it really *feminists?*"

Yes, you have the Fund for Feminist Majority, the ACLU and key Democratic figures- ex. Patricia Schroeder (and Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy and Barbara Mikulski) who at the time was on the Senate Arms Service Committee, all of which are responsible for lowered and eliminated standards. As I said in previous posts the ACLU has threatened suit just recently to get the national firefighter standards lowered yet once again for women.

And why isn't this universal, as in, police departments have the same physical standards for both sexes...astronauts have the same physical standards for both sexes...what is the reasoning *there?*"

This sentence doesn't make sense. If you are implying that standards for police and astronauts are the same for both sexes then you are wrong- they are not. The police have two sets of standards and employ the concept of "pairing". Astronauts generally come from the military which is all gender normed. (side note * recent test in Netherlands showed that women perform 15% less well under heavy g activity then their male counterparts- a difference that surprised even the testers).

If you are asking why there are not Universal standards then all I can say is because men outperform women. If men didn't outperform women there would be no fear of lawsuits, no cries of "discrimination", and no lawyers getting rich. Thanks to feminists and their pathologies we can no longer exploit men's biological advantages in these areas without fear of repercussion.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 12, 2005, 07:21 PM
Thank you Darth and yeah, I know Galt, I know...
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Darth Sidious on Sep 12, 2005, 07:30 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
Thank you Darth and yeah, I know Galt, I know...


When someone speaks the truth (especially when the truth is so socially unacceptable to acknowledge), I feel obligated, nay privileged, to voice my agreement.  Society should not play "pretend" any longer.  It is not only intuitively obvious that women should not be in combat but there are copious amounts of evidence proving just that.  Thank you for sharing such evidence.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 02:17 PM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
BINGO!

But that's what feminism has brought us. But you as a feminist deny it.


Actually, I as a feminist have done nothing but talk on this board about what a bad idea separate standards for the genders are.  ;)


When it suits feminists to have the same standards they're all for it. To expect hold positions they are not capable of because they have been barred from them for the obvious is unthinkable, and then it's time to say "I want the same deal as men"....but really, it's a smoke show.


Nah, it's for real.  Pity I don't still have my old APFT scorecards, I could scan 'em and post 'em.  But of course, they could have been falsified, so...well, hell.  ;)  If you wanna believe it's a smokescreen, there's obviously *nothing* I, as an invisible internet presence, can do about it.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 02:22 PM
Quote from: "no2fembots"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
It hasn't been.  I admire your attempt to find some credibility in those refusing to allow women to enter into those jobs, though.


First point: WRONGWRONGWRONG!  Maybe Gonzokid and some others who have already posted info you want to deny can hit you over the head again with even MORE published research.


http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html

Quote from: "no2fembots"
Second point: Do you really admire his attempt to "find some credibility..."


Indeed I do.  He is attempting to infuse logic into the debate, which I admire deeply.  As opposed to spouting off bizarre and emotion-laden stuff about the roles God intended for us, *all* men are stronger and faster than *all* women, etc. etc.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 02:24 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
Quote
I suspect I'm not any more diverse than most. Let's stop trying to pound round people into square holes, shall we?


Thanks for answering. I was under the impression that you were a 'hardliner' feminist that adhered to the party line.

So, would it be safe to say that there are things about feminism that you would like to see revamped or thrown out?


Very much so, yes.

Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
Do you try to influence (in whatever way an individual is possible to) the direction feminism is heading?


Yes, I do.

Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
For instance, when the topic of women entering formerly male-only occupations comes up when you talk to other feminists do you try to explain to them why you are against lowered/double standards?


Yes, I have.

Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
What kind of reaction do you get from them?


(sigh) It varies...some are very supportive, some are not.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 02:25 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
Had it been against the law for you to do so, though, none of that would've mattered. And that's my point.


Maybe, if this were 30 years ago, I would not be permitted to be a store manager - and now I am (even though I'm only a first assistant, there are many women managers in my company).  But I thank the trailblazers for my position, the women who were brave enough to go for it, and the men who supported and trained them.  


Me too.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 13, 2005, 02:28 PM
Hmm... all this talk of exploiting men's greater physical strength sort of puts me in the mood for another analogy...

It's sort of like black people two centuries ago trying to argue against racist (and poor) whites who want to do away with slavery and blacks all together: "but massa, only us slaves is strong enough to pick cotton!"
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 02:29 PM
Quote from: "Factory"
Quote

I have no plans to enlighten anybody on this board...psychologically, I really don't see that as a possibility.  As far as enlightening myself...I had high hopes, but they're not working out well.  When I make a statement that is not what others here have decided is the "feminist party line," I am reviled for it.  When I make a  statement that is what others here have decided is the feminist party line, I am reviled for it.  <shrug>  The idea exchange requires that people debate my *ideas,* which they are not; they are debating the fact that I am a feminist.  Sort of like if I answered everything you guys said with either, "That's just what MRAs like to spout!" or "That's not what MRAs usually spout, what are you trying to pull?"  I could cover every single statement you could possibly make with either of those two responses, but how much idea exchange would occur?  Zero.  Bor-ing.



For the umpteenth time, I am debating your statements on thier merit ALONE...and you know it.  So stop making me out to be some kind of guy I'm not.  


;) As soon as you stop making me out to be some kind of woman I'm not.  Fair's fair.

Quote from: "Factory"
The fact is, you have quite frequently stated that you are a feminist, which as a political movement is ENTIRELY culpable in the issues that have pissed us off and marginalized us (by that I mean nearly every single guy on this board, as well as a quite likely huge number of men not on this board).  It's disingenuous...no...it's outright STUPID to come on this board, announce that you ally yourself with the same ideology that created VAST numbers of problems, as well as some (SOME) positive aspects to modern society, and then get miffed because some guy says "You feminists have done..."


I don't get miffed.  I just get bored when that becomes ALL that's being said.  

Quote from: "Factory"
Let's grow up a little as a group here...sound fair?


Love to see it.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 13, 2005, 03:13 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Hmm... all this talk of exploiting men's greater physical strength sort of puts me in the mood for another analogy...

quote]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the "exploitation" part.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 13, 2005, 03:30 PM
Someone on here specifically used the word exploitation. But I can't remember where.

However it's academic. Men are being exploited for their greater strength by the state. Women are not similarly subject to exploit by the state for whatever they do that the state might find useful.

It's irrelevant how strenuously people argue that women aren't suited for X. The fact remains, women are not exploited by the state and men are. This is a double standard.

You don't have to go into war to put your body to service for the state. If feminists were really about equality, they would have pointed out some compulsive service women could do for the state rather then hammering at "women and war service" then smiling behind their hands when men chomp on the bit to refute the notion that women can go to war.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 13, 2005, 03:36 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Someone on here specifically used the word exploitation. But I can't remember where.

However it's academic. Men are being exploited for their greater strength by the state. Women are not similarly subject to exploit by the state for whatever they do that the state might find useful.

It's irrelevant how strenuously people argue that women aren't suited for X. The fact remains, women are not exploited by the state and men are. This is a double standard.

You don't have to go into war to put your body to service for the state. If feminists were really about equality, they would have pointed out some compulsive service women could do for the state rather then hammering at "women and war service" then smiling behind their hands when men chomp on the bit to refute the notion that women can go to war.


Thanks, I get it now.  I agree with you.  I feel if men are to do compulsory service, then women should as well.  Good point.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 13, 2005, 03:38 PM
Quote
As opposed to spouting off bizarre and emotion-laden stuff about the roles God intended for us, *all* men are stronger and faster than *all* women, etc. etc.


If you think that is what I said, you are seriously mistaken.

If you're faster than a man, well then good for you.   It never mattered much to me, which is a good thing, considering I have no athletic skills whatsoever (I'd mention that I CAN dance, but then I suspect you've been in dance marathons....and won dance contests....etc.)

And I have no time for pre-ordained roles nor for organized religion, so don't even try it.  Merely because I have observed, over the course of 50 years, that one sex is better at some things,  on the whole, than the other, and vice versa, doesn't mean I espouse "roles".

I bear no ill will.  But I'm tired, lkanneg. I'm really really tired of all this bullshit.   I don't hate men and I never will.  That is part of the feminist agenda, whether you care to believe it or not.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 13, 2005, 03:59 PM
I've spoken before about compulsory birth, but if that is unpalatable, how about a tax system women have to sign up for at the age of 18. The taxes collected from women exclusively could go to vet benefits and awards to the families of dead soldiers. This would mean, of course, that all women must make a certain amount of money each year to pay the tax. Perhaps it could also be paid in terms of government service.

Alternatively a lottery system could be in place where one woman is selected to make monthly payments to a specific disabled vet upon his return from war service. That way women not only are supporting the state, but also get a personal taste of the cost of war. BTW, any woman thus selected forgoes the option of unemployment throughout her entire life.

Still seems like women would be getting off light, but it would be better then what's happening now.

The US might also find that troop deployment decreases significantly as soon as western women bear *some* of the brunt of war; and thus exert preassure on US politicians to avoid that option.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 04:05 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
As opposed to spouting off bizarre and emotion-laden stuff about the roles God intended for us, *all* men are stronger and faster than *all* women, etc. etc.


If you think that is what I said, you are seriously mistaken.


I wasn't referring specifically to anything you said, contrarymary.

Quote from: "contrarymary"
I bear no ill will.  But I'm tired, lkanneg. I'm really really tired of all this bullshit.  


(sigh) If by "bullshit" you mean, my posts, I don't think anybody is forcing you to post to me.  If by "bullshit" you mean "feminism," I'm sorry you feel that way.  

Quote from: "contrarymary"
I don't hate men and I never will.  


Me neither.  The three people I love most in all the world are male.

Quote from: "contrarymary"
That is part of the feminist agenda, whether you care to believe it or not.


I think that many people like to tell themselves so, for reasons that are beyond me.  I personally know several feminists who love men, so I know it isn't true.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 13, 2005, 04:10 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I think that many people like to tell themselves so, for reasons that are beyond me.  I personally know several feminists who love men, so I know it isn't true.


And I'll bet they love them because "they aren't like the others."

Sort of like a white person saying, "Mary is just wonderful, you'd barely even notice she's black."

That's not racist at all. Not one bit.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 13, 2005, 04:11 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Factory"
Quote

I have no plans to enlighten anybody on this board...psychologically, I really don't see that as a possibility.  As far as enlightening myself...I had high hopes, but they're not working out well.  When I make a statement that is not what others here have decided is the "feminist party line," I am reviled for it.  When I make a  statement that is what others here have decided is the feminist party line, I am reviled for it.  <shrug>  The idea exchange requires that people debate my *ideas,* which they are not; they are debating the fact that I am a feminist.  Sort of like if I answered everything you guys said with either, "That's just what MRAs like to spout!" or "That's not what MRAs usually spout, what are you trying to pull?"  I could cover every single statement you could possibly make with either of those two responses, but how much idea exchange would occur?  Zero.  Bor-ing.



For the umpteenth time, I am debating your statements on thier merit ALONE...and you know it.  So stop making me out to be some kind of guy I'm not.  


;) As soon as you stop making me out to be some kind of woman I'm not.  Fair's fair.

Quote from: "Factory"
The fact is, you have quite frequently stated that you are a feminist, which as a political movement is ENTIRELY culpable in the issues that have pissed us off and marginalized us (by that I mean nearly every single guy on this board, as well as a quite likely huge number of men not on this board).  It's disingenuous...no...it's outright STUPID to come on this board, announce that you ally yourself with the same ideology that created VAST numbers of problems, as well as some (SOME) positive aspects to modern society, and then get miffed because some guy says "You feminists have done..."


I don't get miffed.  I just get bored when that becomes ALL that's being said.  

Quote from: "Factory"
Let's grow up a little as a group here...sound fair?


Love to see it.


I'd like to know exactly how I've made you out to be something other than what you yourself stated repeatedly on this BB.  I have posted based on your posts, refuting arguments or getting my ass handed to me...whatever.  That you contend that I am making you out to be something you're not...well, if the shoe fits....

As for the growing up thing, that was more directed at the guys trumpeting that men are universally stronger/faster /better, but it could equally be applied to a feminist that is sticking her fingers in her ear and screaming "not me not me not me".

Again...if the shoe fits.

But to avoid any sort of personal bashing, I will just make my point as clear as possible as regards your responses....I feel very strongly that you are not only not acknowledging any point that disagrees with your worldview, you are simply here to inflame already painful wounds on as many men as you can.  That sort of behaviour can only be categorized as amoral at best, and outright evil at worst.  I used to think this was not the goal you had in mind, but now I am not so sure.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but so far all I have seen is denial...denial that things happen, minimization of painful experiences ("*I* have never seen *that*), etc.  Maybe I'm not reading all the posts, I don't know.

But so far, you are just like nearly every other woman I have talked to about these issues...you know they exist, you know they are important, you know they are not just....it's just that you don't give a rat's ass.

If that is the case...do us all a favour and be honest.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 04:19 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I think that many people like to tell themselves so, for reasons that are beyond me.  I personally know several feminists who love men, so I know it isn't true.


And I'll bet they love them because "they aren't like the others."


No.  They love them because they are their sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, boyfriends and friends.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 13, 2005, 04:20 PM
Quote
That is part of the feminist agenda, whether you care to believe it or not.


I think that many people like to tell themselves so, for reasons that are beyond me. I personally know several feminists who love men, so I know it isn't true.[/quote]

http://womensissues.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gabnet.com%2Flit%2Fdemoh10.htm

Please check our "Gallery of Feminist Hate"....I didn't believe it until I saw it either.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 04:37 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
How about a tax system women have to sign up for at the age of 18. The taxes collected from women exclusively could go to vet benefits and awards to the families of dead soldiers. This would mean, of course, that all women must make a certain amount of money each year to pay the tax. Perhaps it could also be paid in terms of government service.


I still prefer either no draft or gender-blind draft, but that's a reasonable suggestion.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 04:45 PM
Quote from: "Factory"
...do us all a favour and be honest.


(sigh) I've been nothing but honest on this board.

Quote from: "Factory"
.But to avoid any sort of personal bashing, I will just make my point as clear as possible as regards your responses....I feel very strongly that you are not only not acknowledging any point that disagrees with your worldview, you are simply here to inflame already painful wounds on as many men as you can.  That sort of behaviour can only be categorized as amoral at best, and outright evil at worst.  I used to think this was not the goal you had in mind, but now I am not so sure.

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but so far all I have seen is denial...denial that things happen, minimization of painful experiences ("*I* have never seen *that*), etc.  Maybe I'm not reading all the posts, I don't know.


I think you aren't.  When I state, "I have never seen that..." about someone's wretched experience shared here, which I only state when it is the truth--I can't pretend to have personal or firsthand observational experience with something when I haven't, I follow it up with, "but I believe that it has happened and does happen."  I genuinely don't understand why that minimizes the painful experience.  If I said, "I've been raped!!"  (which I haven't--this is just an example) and someone on here responded with, "I've never known any woman who was raped, but I believe it has happened and does happen," I wouldn't feel like my rape was minimized.  I'd feel like I met someone who'd never known anyone personally who got raped.  

Quote from: "Factory"
But so far, you are just like nearly every other woman I have talked to about these issues...you know they exist, you know they are important, you know they are not just....it's just that you don't give a rat's ass.


Probably it's true enough that most people care most about what might affect *them* personally, followed by things that might affect *others* personally.  I haven't shared much in the way of bad things that have happened to me because I'm female or women I've known because they were female on here, because...I don't expect you all to care as much about that as you do about what's happened to you and other males.  Actually, I expect some of you would say it didn't matter, or that it was all lies, which would make me sad, which is another reason I don't share those stories on here.  But *I'd* never say that to anyone on here.   And I do care about what's happened to people on here.  I don't want *anybody* to suffer because of his or her gender.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 05:10 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
BRITISH STUDY FINDS FEMALE SOLDIERS "TOO WEAK" FOR LAND COMBAT  
1/14/2002 12:58:35 PM  

Problems with Physical Capabilities and Unit Cohesion    
An extensive study ordered by British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has reportedly recommended that women should not be allowed to fight in the front line. Citing evidence gathered over 18 months, the "Combat Effectiveness Gender Study" concluded that females lack the strength and stamina needed to serve in the infantry, armored regiments, Royal Marines or the RAF Regiment, the Air Force's infantry unit.

In compiling the study for review by the Chiefs of Staff, British Army officials gathered information from several other countries with gender-integrated armed forces, and carried out tests of physical capabilities in Wales. According to the London Sunday Times, June 24, 2001, the women performed comparatively poorly in physical tasks:

· In a test requiring soldiers to carry 90 lbs. of artillery shells over measured distances, the male failure rate was 20%. The female failure rate was 70%.

· In a 12.5-mile route march carrying 60 lbs. of equipment, followed by target practice simulating conditions under fire, men failed in 17% of cases. Women failed in 48%.

· Females were generally slower in simulated combat exercises involving lengthy "fire and move" situations, in which participants had to sprint from one position to another in full battle dress.

· In close-quarter battle tests, including hand-to-hand combat, women suffered much higher injury rates.

Negative findings in the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study are even more significant in view of the fact that test exercises reportedly had been so diluted and watered down that they amounted to little more than "aggressive camping." (Electronic Telegraph, Mar. 26, 2001) According to Brig. Seymour Monro, the Army's Director of Infantry, tasks that women soldiers were not physically capable of performing had been made easier or dropped from the trials.

Another military source told the Telegraph that women were not capable of a number of tasks under battlefield conditions, such as digging themselves into hard ground under fire. "The girls could not do it. So they decided to reduce the level of the tests for everybody, which kept it gender neutral but meant that of course the girls did OK." Heavy weapons and tanks were not used in the trials.

According to Army Times, a British medical report released in June of 2001 found that the rate of injuries among military women in co-ed training had tripled to 23 per 1,000 in 1996, from a 1992 rate of 8 per 1,000. (June 25, 2001) On January 3, 2002, an Army doctor confirmed that female soldiers were paying for "equal opportunities" with a much higher risk of injury.

In addition to shortcomings in physical strength, the report said that the cohesion of frontline units suffers when women are introduced, because men's behavior becomes "more instinctive and less professional." The finding mirrored testimony presented to America's 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services by instructors who teach Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) techniques. SERE trainers from Fairchild AFB, WA, said that it was necessary to "desensitize" men whose stronger reaction to simulated violence against women could be exploited by an enemy holding male and female captives.

A prominent British feminist, defense minister Baroness Symons, argued in a magazine interview that military men should have instincts to protect female colleagues drilled out of them. "It is a question of training men so that in those circumstances [combat] they will not protect somebody else before doing their primary duty just on the basis of the gender of the person." A former member of the British Equal Opportunity Commission, Baroness Symons also expressed the hope that within 30 years the services will consist of 51% women, and that a woman will become Chief of the Defence Staff. Senior Army commanders were highly critical of that view. (London Sunday Times, Jan. 14, 2001)

When the "Combat Effectiveness Gender Study" was initiated, it was widely expected that the Army's field trials would demonstrate that women were physically capable of serving in land combat units. Defence Minister Geoff Hoon previously had expressed support for the idea. During the 2001 elections, some Labour Party leaders questioned the premise that the armed forces exist to defend the United Kingdom and project power around the world. Instead, some said the military was a kind of human rights agency, and that "warfighting does not represent the primary function of our Armed Services." (Electronic Telegraph Mar. 26, 2001)

The September 11, 2001, terrorist Attack on America seems to have changed that attitude dramatically. According to sources close to the situation, the drive to assign women to British land combat units has come to a halt.


The Reality of Women in Combat
By Melissa Charbonneau
White House Correspondent


CBN.com - WASHINGTON - Women have been allowed to serve on Navy warships and combat aircraft since 1994. But now, the Army is under fire. It is accused of violating its own ban on putting females near the frontlines.

An inquiry by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter has found women may already be in the war, right on the front lines. He said, "... in positions like loaders for tanks, ammunition loaders, people who put fuel in the tanks and other combat vehicles."

The Commander-in-Chief stated his policy in January, telling reporters he is opposed to women in combat. The Army's new Secretary, Francis Harvey, then wrote Congress, insisting that the Army is not changing its policy.

They say women can and do drive trucks, deliver fuel and munitions to front-line soldiers. But because females do not remain round-the-clock with combat forces, or provide support to units "currently engaged" in action, the Army is complying with federal law.

Chairman Hunter said, "Although we think there may be cases where women have mistakenly been put in those roles, the assurance I've received from the Secretary of the Army is that policy is not going to change, and those people up front with the combat battalions doing those type of jobs -- ammo loaders, the fuel loaders, people like that, are going to continue to be male only."

Taylor said, "There are no such things as fixed battle lines in the kind of war we're fighting now, in war against terrorism, against insurgents. Insurgents attack 360 degrees day and night, and they can hit forward support companies with women as easily as they can hit infantry combat units."

In fact, Army officers say support companies are more vulnerable to attack than combat units, because they are less likely to fight back. And women, who comprise 15 percent of the Army's ranks, though still banned from combat, are dying in record numbers -- 27 fallen in Iraq alone.

Taylor remarked, "We can't get enough males in the military who have the capability or who want to be in these support units. That's the basic problem. There are a lot of women who do want to be in these positions of forward support comSome say physical strength differences could mean life or death. The military has different training standards for men and women. Marines are trained to evacuate wounded soldiers on their back, with up to 80 pounds of gear. Could a women with half the upper body strength as a man be called upon to do the same?

Some say these questions demand a public debate before assigning women in combat support positions becomes the next step to placing women in combat.

Should current policy be changed to reflect the realities of today's battlefield? Or should U.S. laws be strengthened that restrict women in war? It is a politically sensitive debate confronting the President, the Pentagon, and Congress, even as American troops are at war.

Army researchers came up with a new study that concludes that, when a woman is correctly. trained, she can be as tough as any man. The report by the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine at Natick, MA was led by senior analyst Everett Harman. "You don't need testosterone to get strong," Harman concluded. Through a regimen of regular jogging, weight training, and other rigorous exercise, more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military. Before training, less than 25 percent of the women were capable of performing the tasks. All but one of the females were civilian volunteers, and none had previously adopted a routine of strenuous physical activity. The women included lawyers, mothers, students, and bartenders. Several had recently had children and thought the training would put them back in shape. They were unaware that their performance might eventually be used to topple one of the last citadels of bias against women in both the military and society. The 24-week training study began in May 1995 with women spending 90 minutes a day, five days a week, building themselves up for endurance tests. They ran a two-mile wooded course wearing a 75-pound rucksack and performed squats holding a 100-pound barbell on their shoulders. Nationally certified trainers oversaw the conditioning. Improvement of over 33 percent was noted by the scientists who wrote the report.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 13, 2005, 05:23 PM
Here's the article, Ikanneg:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050223a.asp

You cut and pasted when it suited you.

You left out parts like this:

"Opponents to gender integration cite a serious threat to troop morale and to the mission. They say mixing the sexes leads to romantic involvements, sexual harassment, pregnancies, male protectiveness -- all dangerous distractions on the front line."

... and then even pulled up the next paragraph into the one preceding that.  You cut and hacked at several points, but you presented it as the full, complete article.

I'll let people follow the link, and compare it to what you posted and make up their own minds.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 05:25 PM
For Female GIs, Combat Is a Fact
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005

MOSUL, Iraq -- Jennifer Guay went to war to be a grunt. And the 170-pound former bartender from Leeds, Maine, with cropped red hair and a penchant for the bench press, has come pretty close.

It was mid-February and Guay, 26, an Army specialist who was the first woman to be assigned as an infantry combat medic, was spending 10 hours a day on missions with the 82nd Airborne Division, dodging rockets and grenades in the crowded streets of Mosul.
   

Jennifer Guay Sits in Stryker Vehicle
Specialist Jennifer Guay, a medic shown in the back of a Stryker combat ehicle, was the first woman to be assigned as an infantry combat medic. During that time she spent 10 hours a day on missions with the 82nd Airborne Division. (


"Break-break-break: U.S. soldier down!" a hard-edged voice came over the radio. A gun battle had just broken out.

In less than five minutes, Guay was at the scene. She dashed to Sgt. Christopher Pusateri, 21, who was lying on the ground, a bullet through his jaw. "I was in charge of this man's life," she recalled. Pusateri had "a massive trauma injury, and I had to get him off the middle of the street."

Day after day, Guay has faced situations that would test the steel of any soldier. And female soldiers like her -- as well as Army officers who support them -- are seizing opportunities amid Iraq's indiscriminate violence to push back the barriers against women in combat. As American women in uniform patrol bomb-ridden highways, stand duty at checkpoints shouldering M-16s and raid houses in insurgent-contested towns, many have come to believe this 360-degree war has rendered obsolete a decade-old Pentagon policy barring them from serving with ground combat battalions.

"The Army has to understand the regulation that says women can't be placed in direct fire situations is archaic and not attainable," said Lt. Col. Cheri Provancha, commander of a Stryker Brigade support battalion in Mosul, who decided to bend Army rules and allow Guay to serve as a medic for an infantry company of the 82nd Airborne. Under a 1994 policy, women are excluded from units at the level of battalion and below that engage in direct ground combat.

"This war has proven that we need to revisit the policy, because they are out there doing it," Provancha, a 21-year Army veteran from San Diego, said from her base in what soldiers call Mosul's "mortar alley." "We are embedded with the enemy."

Dozens of soldiers interviewed across Iraq -- male and female, from lower enlisted ranks to senior officers -- voiced frustration over restrictions on women mandated in Washington that they say make no sense in the war they are fighting. All said the policy should be changed to allow, at a minimum, mixed-sex support units to be assigned to combat battalions. Many favored a far more radical step: letting qualified women join the infantry.

For many inside Army camps, the disconnect between Washington officialdom and the reality that female troops confront in Iraq was epitomized by President Bush's Jan. 11 declaration of "No women in combat."

"That's an oxymoron!" said Sgt. Neva D. Trice, who leads a female Army search team that guards the gates of Baghdad's Green Zone, where many U.S. and Iraqi government facilities are located. "If he said no women in combat, then why are there women here in Iraq?"

Several male Army officers also dismissed Bush's statement as woefully uninformed. "The president got blindsided. The president didn't understand what the policy really was," said one officer, who requested anonymity because he was questioning the commander-in-chief. He and others urged Army leaders to push for new policies that reflect women's expanded role.

In sheer numbers, women are essential to the American military effort in Iraq -- where tens of thousands have served -- and are playing a bigger role than in any previous U.S. conflict. Historically, women's involvement in the military has surged in wartime. Today, that pattern is amplified by the all-volunteer U.S. military's growing share of women, which has steadily expanded in recent years to 15 percent of the active duty force.

Moreover, in contrast to their roles in past wars, women are serving in a widening variety of Army ground units -- from logistics to military police, military intelligence and civil affairs -- where they routinely face the same risks as soldiers in all-male combat units such as infantry and armor.

"We live and work with the infantry," said Maj. Mary Prophit, 42, who heads a four-person civil affairs team with a Stryker battalion in Mosul. An Army reservist and librarian from Glenoma, Wash., Prophit handles security duties from the hatch of a Stryker armored vehicle, watching houses during searches and returning fire when shot at. "Civil affairs teams have to be prepared to perform infantry functions, because at any time we could be diverted," she said.

In January, Prophit was delivering kerosene heaters to a Mosul school when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb as her convoy passed, fatally wounding three Iraqi soldiers. Prophit moved to shield the medic treating the wounded, firing at insurgents who were shooting at them from a mosque across the street. "Women in combat is no longer an argument," she said matter-of-factly at her camp near the Mosul air field. "There is no rear area."

At least as often as insurgents attack all-male infantry forces, they strike targets such as military supply convoys, checkpoints and camps where U.S. servicewomen are often present. As a result, hostile fire in Iraq has taken a proportionally larger toll on servicewomen than in any prior U.S. conflict, killing 35 and wounding 279.

"You can't tell me I'm not being shot at. You can't tell me I can't handle combat," said Provancha, who has nearly been hit by road bombs, rockets and the chow hall suicide bombing that killed 22 in December. "That was pretty frickin' direct fire if you ask me," she said, holding up a piece of shrapnel.

Far from shrinking from the fight, women in Iraq are winning medals for valor under fire.

Spec. Shavodsha Hodges, 29, of San Antonio, says she joined the Army because her GI husband encouraged her to. She is a veteran of the 2003 Iraq invasion and well into her second year in a war zone. She and about 100 other women make up 20 percent of Provancha's logistics battalion in Mosul. They serve as truck and Stryker drivers, medics, mechanics and supply soldiers like Hodges who conduct between 50 and 70 convoy missions a month. Ferrying critical goods from Mosul to outlying bases on the precarious roads of northern Iraq, Hodges has developed keen instincts.

On Oct. 29, she was in a supply convoy heading out of the hostile town of Tall Afar, near the Syrian border. "We were told to watch out for an Iraqi national in black," she recalled. "Within seconds we were hit with an IED," or improvised explosive device, the military's term for a roadside bomb.

As her Humvee began to roll over, Hodges reached over and grabbed the legs of Pfc. Gregory Burchett, who was manning a .50-caliber machine gun. She pulled him down from the hatch and into the vehicle just before it flipped, saving him from being crushed.

Burchett was disoriented and moaning in pain. His face was bleeding from multiple shrapnel wounds and he couldn't move his arm. Hodges helped him out of the vehicle, but almost as soon they climbed out they came under small-arms fire from insurgents 200 yards away.

"Stay down!" Hodges yelled. Cradling Burchett's head in her lap, she lay forward over his upper body to shield him from the bullets. "Don't get up!" she said, twice sheltering the gunner from enemy rounds.
   

Meanwhile, the Humvee's commander, Staff Sgt. Armando Mejia, had his hand trapped under the vehicle. After the shooting stopped, Hodges and other soldiers pushed it up enough to free him. Only later did she realize that she, too, was injured.

For her quick thinking and bravery in the ambush, Hodges became the first woman in her brigade to be awarded the Army Commendation Medal with "V" device, for "valorous conduct" that "saved the lives of her fellow soldiers."

Many commanders in Iraq say they see a widening gap between war-zone realities and policies designed to limit women's exposure to combat.

Although the Army is barred from assigning women to ground combat battalions, in Iraq it skirts the ban with a twist in terminology. Instead of being "assigned," women are "attached in direct support of" the battalions, according to Army officers familiar with the policy. As a result, the Army avoids having to seek Pentagon and congressional approval to change the policy, officers said.

"What has changed? Nothing," said Lt. Col. Bob Roth of the 3rd Infantry Division. "You just want someone to feel better by saying we don't allow women in dangerous situations."

Male and female soldiers said many women in Iraq were performing well in risky jobs that require infantry skills -- from military police and civil affairs troops to female search teams that go on raids with Army and Marine infantry units. On raids, a woman is "as much infantry soldier on the ground doing the duties as anyone else," Roth said. "She may not have been the person who knocked the door in, but she's with the next stack getting ready to come in."
   
Most soldiers and officers interviewed also agreed that women need tougher physical fitness standards to perform well in infantry jobs, but that many could meet those standards. For some, the impact of pregnancy on readiness was a concern. Commanders of mixed-sex units in Iraq said that from 5 percent to 15 percent of their women became pregnant and did not deploy to Iraq, but one said health and family issues kept a similar percentage of men home.

From Mosul to Ramadi to Baghdad, women such as Guay, who spent three months with the 82nd Airborne, have shown that they can be valuable players in combat units.

Guay was a student, engrossed by the moral dilemmas of war, when she decided to enlist in the Army in September 2002 to test her beliefs. "I called an Army recruiter. I wanted to be as grunt as possible," she said.

She lifted weights and studied combat medical skills. Once in Iraq, she actively sought missions "outside the wire" of the Mosul camp. When the 82nd Airborne arrived and needed a medic, Guay wanted to go. Provancha, whose team of medics is 40 percent female, assigned her.

"She wanted to be part of breaking the barrier down," Provancha said. Provancha took full responsibility for her decision, informing superiors rather than asking permission.

"Think of the fallout if she had gotten wounded or killed," Provancha said. "I probably would have been brought up on charges for defying Army policy." But that didn't happen. Instead, she said, Guay "did magnificently."

Initially, the 82nd questioned the move. At first, the grunts watched Guay. Then, in a casual sign of acceptance, they began calling her "Doc." A few firefights later, she became their "kick-ass medic." She was one of them.

"I was always working out and being strong and proficient," said Guay, proud of the fact that she could "out-bench some of the guys." She lived, ate and went on daily missions with the paratroops, bonding with the men whose lives could at any moment be placed in her hands.

When the soldiers fell, as Pusateri did in the firefight that gray day in February, Guay gave them her all, even when hope was slim. Recalling how she knelt at the mortally wounded sergeant's side, she said she would never forget being the last person with him, and the profound respect it engendered.

She quickly inserted an IV and ran a tube into his throat, pumping a bag every five seconds to put precious air into his lungs.

"Squeeze my hand," she told him. He did. She pumped the bag again. Pusateri was stable, but slowly losing consciousness. "You're so brave," she said, rubbing his head as everything around them faded into a blur. "You're amazing."
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 13, 2005, 05:27 PM
It's customary to post a link.  Especially if you're changing what was really written.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 13, 2005, 05:35 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
"So...where does this leave me, if the world is to be ordered that women should be the only ones doing the things that embody "women's strengths" and men should be the only ones doing the things that embody "men's strengths?" Where does this leave others? In a world where women can't be soldiers and engineers and men can't be primary caregivers and teachers of small children..?"

Such a world would be very efficient- intelligent and identity affirming to normal healthy men and women.... but your question is thoughtful and provides insight into your resistance to certain facts

What do we do with exceptions such as yourself? It is understandable that masculine women or feminine men would find the historic and traditional world unsatisfying but for the greater good, and especially in areas of life and death we need to forsake such concerns. There are more then enough areas in our culture where such people can be included without sacrificing either efficiency or standards which are in phase with biological reality.


Erm, the only problem with this is that I am not a masculine woman.  

I have "traditionally masculine" strengths.  I also have "traditionally feminine strengths."  I'm empathetic.  I'm compassionate.  I'm very maternal.  I love and am gentleness and patience itself with children and animals.  I'm sweet.  I enjoy waiting upon the other members of my household, family and even my friends, especially if they're exhausted or depressed or ill or otherwise in obvious need of a loving shelter from a cruel world.  

I'm a normal healthy woman.  I'm a normal healthy FEMININE woman.  ;)  Who happens to also have a healthy portion of so-called "masculine strengths..." which means that, of course, they're not.  Masculine.  They're just strengths.  Which anybody can have.  Which can only do humanity good to exploit regardless of who has them.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 13, 2005, 06:24 PM
Good catch Galt.

Ah yes.  The old, snip a bit here and there of an article and then post it as if it is in its entirety.   This is the sort of "bending" the truth that I have seen repeatedly by feminists.  Maybe that is the way they do it in women's studies classes these days??  Since the cause is so just we don't have to add the quotes in this article that don't support what we are trying to say and no one will really care if we don't tell them that we snipped here and there and this isn't really the whole thing.

I will be very curious to hear lkanneg's excuse for this.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 13, 2005, 06:56 PM
Ikanneg posted:

For Female GIs, Combat Is a Fact
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005



That was very funny Ikanneg... good fiction, though quite silly.. reminds me of another silly lie left wing media types, such as found in the Washington Post, tried to peddle - remember this bullshit?


April 03, 2003

She Went Down Fighting

Rescued POW PFC Jessica Lynch did not give up without a fight.

"As details emerge about her capture and rescue one theme consistently comes through: "She did not want to be taken alive," according to one official. She was shot, stabbed and likely had her legs broken. The fate of her comrades remains unknown at the time of this filing. If our worst fears are confirmed, I hope they gave as good as they got."

Sounds like the dribble you just posted...


As far as you being a feminine woman with masculine traits, sorry but if you have such masculine traits then you are NOT a feminine woman, which is exactly why you resist facts of gender and the reason why feminism appeals to you.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 13, 2005, 07:36 PM
I wish I had seen the reference to the Natick Labs study sooner... this mythology just won't die.. I have written about this before several times when it was going on

The Natick lab study was a fraud, the army discontinued the series planned because the results could not be reproduced and the numbers were 'manipulated'. It was an embarrassment because at the time other countries were conducting legitimate research and had already published their results and anyone seeing the conclusions and who had been to a gym in their life knew it was bogus. Incredibly this farce still gets cited to this day.

I personally have inside info on Natick Labs (and the Framingham Heart Health Center)...  Dr. Everett Harman was involved in a scam ( and himself made some absurd comments that I am sure he regrets making)at a time when the Army thought it could diffuse opposition to women in combat.

As a resident of Natick for many years I have to laugh at how the written word is SO different from what actually occured...
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Stallywood on Sep 13, 2005, 07:42 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I think that many people like to tell themselves so, for reasons that are beyond me.  I personally know several feminists who love men, so I know it isn't true.


And I'll bet they love them because "they aren't like the others."

Sort of like a white person saying, "Mary is just wonderful, you'd barely even notice she's black."

That's not racist at all. Not one bit.


When I was growing up, it usually went this way........ A white guy approaches a group of his fellow whites. I am the only black present. He walks up to us and starts talking about N* this and N* that...then he sees me, his eyes get wide, and he says......Um, not you, your not like them.
This happened to me a hundered times.  But change this so a white guy = a girl/woman, and N* = men.
Stally
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 13, 2005, 08:06 PM
I know this is beating a long dead horse but Natick Labs is like a dear friend to me..


The biggest failure of the 'study', other then the number fudging and the failure to omit those who dropped out,  was that it purposely avoided any direct comparison of women and men under the same training routines because it would prove the exact opposite of what they WANTED to show- men outperfrom women.

This study wasn't just flawed, it was fraud from the very beginning
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 13, 2005, 08:11 PM
Hmmm, let me be clearer

I know this is beating a long dead horse but Natick Labs is like a dear friend to me..


The biggest failure of the 'study', other then the number fudging and the failure to omit those who dropped out, was that it purposely avoided any direct comparison of women and men under the same training routines because it would prove the exact opposite of what they WANTED to show- the exact opposite being men outperforming women.

This study wasn't just flawed, it was fraud from the very beginning


Ok, time for me to go to bed, heh
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 13, 2005, 09:27 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
As far as you being a feminine woman with masculine traits, sorry but if you have such masculine traits then you are NOT a feminine woman, which is exactly why you resist facts of gender and the reason why feminism appeals to you.


I'm not particularly feminine and feminism doesn't appeal to me.

For some reason, despite being more masculine and thus more likely to do things for myself, endlessly whining about others being *obligated* to do things for me because some unproven entity has harmed me is rather unappealing to me.

Let me take this moment to point out an observation of mine... you are far more likely to find feminists in women's studies then computer science. Hmmm....

The feminists I know aren't particularly masculine either. They're just loud, nagging and shrewish. Last time I checked being shrewish was a female trait.

In fact the group of women I've noticed who consistantly embrace masculine virtues -- hard work, perseverance, practicality -- are from patriarchal cultures that teach them to be useful.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: becksbolero on Sep 13, 2005, 09:52 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
"but I believe that it has happened and does happen." I genuinely don't understand why that minimizes the painful experience.


http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6530&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

Because it minimize's the individual involved.

By not acknowledging, or minimizing the experience of an individual, you are in essence "Blowing them off".

Get it?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Russ2d on Sep 13, 2005, 10:29 PM
We disagree on this Typhon,

Yes feminists do cling to women's studies- similar pathologies and like mindedness, easily understood, but they damn well want affirmative action to get women into such areas as computer science, math, engineering- male trait areas - now don't they?   ***Larry Summers***

Feminists reject anything "traditionally feminine"; motherly instincts- nurturing, compassion, submissiveness (my favorite  :D )

Feminist abhor motherhood, softness or anything characteristic of women, they deny there is a mother's instinct, they are obsessed with abortion, they hate men, many  (Patricia Ireland admitted to at least 40%) in the movement are Lesbian

Feminists covet masculinity- they embrace being portrayed as aggressive, strong; as warriors, construction workers, etc.

In short feminists want men to be women and women to be men no matter how you slice and dice it.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Darth Sidious on Sep 13, 2005, 10:41 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
We disagree on this Typhon,

Yes feminists do cling to women's studies- similar pathologies and like mindedness, easily understood, but they damn well want affirmative action to get women into such areas as computer science, math, engineering- male trait areas - now don't they?   ***Larry Summers***

Feminists reject anything "traditionally feminine"; motherly instincts- nurturing, compassion, submissiveness (my favorite  :D )

Feminist abhor motherhood, softness or anything characteristic of women, they deny there is a mother's instinct, they are obsessed with abortion, they hate men, many  (Patricia Ireland admitted to at least 40%) in the movement are Lesbian

Feminists covet masculinity- they embrace being portrayed as aggressive, strong; as warriors, construction workers, etc.

In short feminists want men to be women and women to be men no matter how you slice and dice it.


Another inspired post!  I concur wholeheartedly.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 13, 2005, 10:52 PM
Well... feminists do seem to want to be *their* version of men -- namely people who get everything they want without lifting a finger.

Anyway, so what do you suggest doing with statistical malingerers like me? Taken out back and shot?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Darth Sidious on Sep 13, 2005, 11:01 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Well... feminists do seem to want to be *their* version of men -- namely people who get everything they want without lifting a finger.

Anyway, so what do you suggest doing with statistical malingerers like me? Taken out back and shot?


Huh?   :?   What is with the hysterics at the end of that post?  When exactly has Russ2d ever implied taking such a course of action?  He believes as I do in sex roles for societal efficiency.  Just because there are some exceptions like masculine women and feminine men does not mean we ought to toss the idea of sex roles out the window!
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 13, 2005, 11:10 PM
Quote from: "Darth Sidious"

Huh?   :?   What is with the hysterics at the end of that post?


Hysterics? Not likely.

Just curious.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 14, 2005, 05:06 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Good catch Galt.

Ah yes.  The old, snip a bit here and there of an article and then post it as if it is in its entirety.   This is the sort of "bending" the truth that I have seen repeatedly by feminists.  Maybe that is the way they do it in women's studies classes these days??  Since the cause is so just we don't have to add the quotes in this article that don't support what we are trying to say and no one will really care if we don't tell them that we snipped here and there and this isn't really the whole thing.

I will be very curious to hear lkanneg's excuse for this.


;) I didn't snip out any part of the articles I posted--I posted them whole from the sites where I got them, which may or may not have posted them fully (I have no way of knowing--theres a certain level of trust required on the use of Internet articles--someone else on here just got bitten on the a** by not bothering to research their articles fully).  I personally did not adulterate them in any fashion.  I presented enough information along with them that anyone who wanted to find them, could. I just didn't bother to post the links.  As a rule, I do post the link, as you'll see I've done in virtually every post I have made...except my responses to Russ2d, because he didn't bother to post a link to any of his articles either.  So I thought, though his posts have been sitting there for well over a day and many people have commented on them but said nothing about their linklessness...if I do the same...wonder how long it'll take for *me* to have my hand slapped..?  Then I thought, nah, that'd be blatantly hypocritical of them, nobody'd be *that* blatantly hypocritical, would they..?


:lol:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 14, 2005, 05:23 AM
lkanneg - Can you provide us a link for the places where you copied the articles please.  I would be very curious to see how a site has selectively altered someones writing.  Please show us.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 14, 2005, 05:24 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Well... feminists do seem to want to be *their* version of men -- namely people who get everything they want without lifting a finger.

Anyway, so what do you suggest doing with statistical malingerers like me? Taken out back and shot?


LOL!!!
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Sep 14, 2005, 05:35 AM
Off topic.


I have been talking with one of the feminists at ivillage. I think what Nanelle is...and you will have to read this to make sure

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elfeminismto/messages?msg=3854.172

"Other arrangements are possible outside of a court, but a court will usually do the every other weekend. In fact, in our case, it *was* done out of court, I agreed to this arrangement. When one is in the midst of gender change and serious readjustment, it is far better for the child to be in the other home."

and from another post

"I am a Dyke"

This tells me she used to be a lesbian trapped in a man's body?

I thought that was the punch line to a really bad joke!  Now is have heard it all!
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Sep 14, 2005, 05:54 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
lkanneg - Can you provide us a link for the places where you copied the articles please.  I would be very curious to see how a site has selectively altered someones writing.  Please show us.


She won't, because it is more than likely posted on a site that.. well, you know....

or can't because she is full of poopoo.

Anyone else notice how virtually all her 'stories' are from females?  Nawww, could't be....

Al
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 14, 2005, 03:56 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
lkanneg - Can you provide us a link for the places where you copied the articles please.  I would be very curious to see how a site has selectively altered someones writing.  Please show us.


I'm kind of curious about that too.  I'd like to see what type of site it is and why the people who run the site are doing that.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 14, 2005, 04:02 PM
Exactly Galt.  I plan to get in touch with the author of the article and let her know that her writing is being "dissembled."  I know if I had written an article such as this and a site had published only parts of it I would want to know.  The possibility also exists that the author knows the site has done this.  Either way it will be interesting to see and should be quite easy for lkanneg to go back and find the link through the history of her browser.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 15, 2005, 05:19 AM
Bump

Please respond lkanneg.

E
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 15, 2005, 06:14 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Bump

Please respond lkanneg.

E


I am so sorry, the pace has picked up at work and spilled over into home as well ("the pace has picked up;" that's the understatement of the century  :roll: )

Anyway, I haven't had time and I don't know when I will have it to find the specific links I posted from.  However, I'm pretty sure that the path I followed to get to them started at this site:  http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/

Hope this helps.

Lisa
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 15, 2005, 06:31 AM
You've apparently made an error, Ikanneg, because Google allows an advanced search of a domain name with the relevant key words.  The name of the article ("The Reality of Women in Combat") could not be found on the domain of the site you gave ( http://userpages.aug.com ), although it was found on cbn.com and other sites.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Gerard Velthuis on Sep 15, 2005, 06:37 AM
Can we just forget about Ikanneg, there is way too much energy and effort spend on this woman. If she wants to bother people at this forum, fine.
You guys are not getting anything out of these discussion with her, it is all a waste of time. She will never change anything about her thoughts and beliefs, so can we just move on with the daily activities here??
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 15, 2005, 06:53 AM
Here it is (complete with the same punctuation mistakes in the modified version):

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/m/dmr281/combat1.html

This is from a small user website of a woman named Dawn Reffner.

What's interesting is that it's on the same university user pages as a former poster here who was also in the military and then also went on to get an engineering degree, Amber Pawlik.  I wonder what they're putting in the water at PSU.  LOL
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Sep 15, 2005, 07:43 AM
LOL Galt

I was going to post more but a convenient excuse came up coincidentally that you can't  disprove. (sigh)

Because I'd really, really, really, really, really, truthfully like to respond to that but like I said before something came up. And so instead of responding to anything I'll just keep posting that I don't have time to post anything.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 15, 2005, 07:46 AM
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/m/dmr281/socialstudies.html

I like the "social studies" course, of course....focused on "women soldiers".

Yeh...the PSU water must glow in the dark! :lol:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 15, 2005, 07:53 AM
I wonder how Ikanneg managed to come up with the modified version of that article (modified in the direction she wanted) from minor university user pages that probably no other site links to.

Even sites on military readiness, a Google search etc. would come up with the "real" CBN article.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 15, 2005, 08:05 AM
Perhaps she will still give us the link that she used to get to the modified version of the article.  Until then it looks pretty suspect.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 15, 2005, 08:26 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Perhaps she will still give us the link that she used to get to the modified version of the article.  Until then it looks pretty suspect.


Gee, selective and out of context posting of an article by little Mz "Sources Please."

There's a fuckin' shocker.  I'd have never saw that one coming.

Well, I guess when clarity of thought fails you, go for lying with cooked statistics, written by people with agendas.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Darth Sidious on Sep 15, 2005, 10:15 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Perhaps she will still give us the link that she used to get to the modified version of the article.  Until then it looks pretty suspect.


Gee, selective and out of context posting of an article by little Mz "Sources Please."

There's a fuckin' shocker.  I'd have never saw that one coming.

Well, I guess when clarity of thought fails you, go for lying with cooked statistics, written by people with agendas.


Well, I don't know of any feminists who would do such a thing.  :shock:

All the feminists I have spoken to emphatically reject such substandard research techniques. :wink:

Your aggressive, misogynistic tone makes me feel uncomfortable. :crybaby:  What makes you so afraid of strong women? :scratchchin:  Don't you know two out of three incidents of domestic violence begin when a man questions a woman's integrity? :readthis:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: PowerMan72 on Sep 15, 2005, 05:20 PM
Dr Evil wrote:
Quote
Bump

Please respond lkanneg.

E


:twisted:
Why don't you bar her from making any further posts until she PMs you with the answer Doc?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 15, 2005, 05:27 PM
I have a feeling that it's just going to remain a mystery like the thing with Amelia Earhart.  Maybe operatives from the Patriarchy were involved somehow.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Sep 15, 2005, 06:57 PM
Amelia Earhart was abducted by the space patriarchs to prevent her from proving that women are better pilots than men.

Mystery solved.

I know because I read it on the internet.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 15, 2005, 08:33 PM
Quote from: "Darth Sidious"


Well, I don't know of any feminists who would do such a thing.  :shock:

All the feminists I have spoken to emphatically reject such substandard research techniques. :wink:


;) What, me, substandard research techniques?

In this case, though, it's totally true.  I posted that article without checking it at its source, which was given in the, shall we say excerpted, article I did end up posting (I'm glad somebody else found it, because for the life of me I couldn't reproduce what I'd done to find it in the first place).   :oops: WHICH teaches me a valuable lesson about doing that--don't!!  Always check the source.  (The source may be full of sh*t as well, but at least it's the complete sh*t).  My apologies.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 15, 2005, 08:49 PM
lkanneg - You are trying to say that you can't find the url where you got that perforated article?  That's a bit hard to believe.  Use your browser history and have a look.  You have enough native intelligence to figure this out.  Let us know what the link is.  You will need an excuse better than that one.  That's worse than my dog peed on it.  Your ethos is sinking quickly.

Powerman, I had something else in mind.:wink:

E
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 15, 2005, 09:03 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
lkanneg - You are trying to say that you can't find the url where you got that perforated article?  That's a bit hard to believe.  Use your browser history and have a look.  You have enough native intelligence to figure this out.  Let us know what the link is.  You will need an excuse better than that one.  That's worse than my dog peed on it.  Your ethos is sinking quickly.


::confused:: Somebody else found it for me already and posted the link in this thread a ways back (on page 11).  Did you miss that?  It was

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/m/dmr281/combat1.html

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Powerman, I had something else in mind.Wink


;) Sounds ominous.  I'm dying of curiosity.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 16, 2005, 04:03 AM
Quote

::confused:: Somebody else found it for me already and posted the link in this thread a ways back (on page 11). Did you miss that? It was

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/m/dmr281/combat1.html


Are you claiming that the page Galt found is the exact page that you found and copied and pasted?  If that is right please tell us just how you found it.  Do you know this person?  It certainly doesn't seem to be a high priority on Google.  If it was that page that you copied and pasted to this board don't  you think that you owe the board an explanation about its source considering it was not a news site in any way and let's just say, somewhat suspect?  Use your browser history and trace your steps and let us know what you find.

E
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 16, 2005, 04:50 AM
BUSTED!  :lol:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Sep 16, 2005, 04:58 AM
Quote
Through a regimen of regular jogging, weight training, and other rigorous exercise, more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military.


Note it does not say ALL the tasks, just tasks. That means there were some or many tasks that they still could not perform.

Only 41 women were studied. We do not know how they were chosen, or if they were representative of women at large.

Quote
They ran a two-mile wooded course wearing a 75-pound rucksack and performed squats holding a 100-pound barbell on their shoulders.


This is impressive, but it is still not to the standards the men are at, such as walking with 200+ pounds, running 5-10 miles with 75+ pounds, etc.  How about tolerance to extreme weather.

It also does not talk about mental strength, can the women cope with the stress of what the men are dealing with over there? (Maybe they can, maybe not)
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 16, 2005, 05:27 AM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"


Only 41 women were studied. We do not know how they were chosen, or if they were representative of women at large.



Exactly, whenever I see stats like this I take myself to a place where all reality plays in. I look around and assess 40 % of the women who surround me, say..at work, at the supermarket, anywhere. Would they pass this test?


No.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 16, 2005, 11:47 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote

::confused:: Somebody else found it for me already and posted the link in this thread a ways back (on page 11). Did you miss that? It was

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/m/dmr281/combat1.html


Are you claiming that the page Galt found is the exact page that you found and copied and pasted?  If that is right please tell us just how you found it.  Do you know this person?  It certainly doesn't seem to be a high priority on Google.  If it was that page that you copied and pasted to this board don't  you think that you owe the board an explanation about its source considering it was not a news site in any way and let's just say, somewhat suspect?  Use your browser history and trace your steps and let us know what you find.

E


I will do my very bestest to answer your questions below.

Q1. Are you claiming that the page Galt found is the exact page that you found and copied and pasted?

It certainly appears to be identical..

Q2. If that is right please tell us just how you found it.

I think that what I did was start at this page:
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/
Then I went to the hyperlink on the above page:
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/combat.html
Saw a small excerpt of the article on the above page and cut and pasted what looked like a unique phrase from the article into Google and got the following results:
LINK (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22contrary+to+the+view+of+many+traditionalists%2C+the+operational+performance+of+groups+improve+greatly+if+both+sexes+are+involved.%22&btnG=Google+Search)
The first hit on the first page that began with an article citation was:
www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/m/dmr281/combat1.html

Q3.  Do you know this person?

No.

Q4.  If it was that page that you copied and pasted to this board don't  you think that you owe the board an explanation about its source considering it was not a news site in any way and let's just say, somewhat suspect?

Hmm...no, I wouldn't say *owe.*  I think that would be a bad precedent to set around here, as I then might get some ideas of my own about what I as a poster am *owed* by this board.  ;)  We wouldn't want that.

(edited to shorten link, E)
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 16, 2005, 11:55 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Hmm...no, I wouldn't say *owe.*  I think that would be a bad precedent to set around here, as I then might get some ideas of my own about what I as a poster am *owed* by this board.  ;)  We wouldn't want that.


Wouldn't matter if you did.

Doc Evil is Lord and Master here.

stevea, LSBeene, Sir Jessy of Anti, and powder-monkey are his faithful servants.

And all the rest of us are guests, welcome to either get booted out if we displease him, or to walk out when we please and kindly not let the door whack us in the ass on the way out - because nobody wants to clean up shit-stains.

Contrary to your feminoid training, you're entitled to no special treatment beyond that.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 16, 2005, 03:06 PM
Thank you lkanneg for your explanation about how you got to that page.  I can see how you got there.  I do think that the page that offered the article was dangerously weak, unscrupulous in their editing and not a good source but I can see how you got where you did.  My guess is that you were aware of this and that played into your decision not to offer a link.  

It is my belief that when we are debating on a forum such as this that indeed each party does "owe" the other the courtesy of knowing the sources of quotes.  

It is fascinating that the article you copied and pasted was "selectively edited" by someone, perhaps the webmaster of that site.  They seemed to leave in the parts that went along with their beliefs and simply deleted the parts that weren't as strongly in favor of their position.  This reminds me so of feminism and the way they may not overtly lie but they tell only a certain side of the truth. (of course there are plenty of times when the just plain lie but that is another story) A good example is the DV industry that only tells the side of the female victim and goes into a rage when any other perspective is mentioned. Or maybe the neediness of girls in school...only telling about the girls even though they are aware that boys are hurting and discriminated against as much or more than the girls.  Or  the reproductive rights ideas where they only tell "her side."  This habit of telling only one side of things seems to be consistently a part of feminism.  If they claimed to be a special interest group I would be far less upset but they claim much more than that.  They claim victimhood and a desire for equality.  What rubbish.   Don't you find it distasteful and embarrassing to be a part of a group that would consistently misinform and bend the truth based on their desires and only tell the part of the story that serves their ends?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 16, 2005, 08:38 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Thank you lkanneg for your explanation about how you got to that page.  I can see how you got there.  I do think that the page that offered the article was dangerously weak, unscrupulous in their editing and not a good source but I can see how you got where you did.  My guess is that you were aware of this and that played into your decision not to offer a link.


Your guess is wrong.  There was only one factor in my decision to not offer a link:  the fact that nobody said anything about it when the other poster neglected to offer any, in fact enthusiastically praised his posts, and the curiosity that inspired in me, to see if this was across-the-board policy or simply something only certain persons (defined as:  anybody but feminists)  were privileged to do.  Turned out to be the second.  ;)  Disappointing but not terribly shocking.

There was also only one factor in my decision to post that link without checking it out further:  laziness.  For that I am ashamed. :oops:  No excuse!

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
It is my belief that when we are debating on a forum such as this that indeed each party does "owe" the other the courtesy of knowing the sources of quotes.


Really? It's *my* belief that when we are debating on a forum such as this that indeed each party does "owe" the other courtesy, period.  Beliefs are such personal things.  ;)  However, this *is* your board, so you can make up and discard whatever rules you like, and I will follow them if I wish to participate here.  

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
It is fascinating that the article you copied and pasted was "selectively edited" by someone, perhaps the webmaster of that site.  They seemed to leave in the parts that went along with their beliefs and simply deleted the parts that weren't as strongly in favor of their position.  This reminds me so of feminism and the way they may not overtly lie but they tell only a certain side of the truth. (of course there are plenty of times when the just plain lie but that is another story) A good example is the DV industry that only tells the side of the female victim and goes into a rage when any other perspective is mentioned. Or maybe the neediness of girls in school...only telling about the girls even though they are aware that boys are hurting and discriminated against as much or more than the girls.  Or  the reproductive rights ideas where they only tell "her side."  This habit of telling only one side of things seems to be consistently a part of feminism.  If they claimed to be a special interest group I would be far less upset but they claim much more than that.  They claim victimhood and a desire for equality.  What rubbish.   Don't you find it distasteful and embarrassing to be a part of a group that would consistently misinform and bend the truth based on their desires and only tell the part of the story that serves their ends?


I've yet to encounter a group that doesn't do that.  When I find that group, I'll probably drop to my knees and worship it.  Til then, I must make do with everyone else.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 16, 2005, 10:06 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I've yet to encounter a group that doesn't do that.  When I find that group, I'll probably drop to my knees and worship it.  Til then, I must make do with everyone else.


Well, I dunno - generally here and at MND the articles I see posted have full links, and the entirity of the text is supplied as well.

Ahhh - I like my sacrifices medium rare.  And gold is so overdone.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Sep 17, 2005, 02:00 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I've yet to encounter a group that doesn't do that.  When I find that group, I'll probably drop to my knees and worship it.  Til then, I must make do with everyone else.


Well, I dunno - generally here and at MND the articles I see posted have full links, and the entirity of the text is supplied as well.

Ahhh - I like my sacrifices medium rare.  And gold is so overdone.


You do realize she is ignoring you, me ..and hell, a half dozen others, right?  It's a common thing, I have seen it over and over again....nothing new here! :lol:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 17, 2005, 04:53 AM
Quote

I've yet to encounter a group that doesn't do that. When I find that group, I'll probably drop to my knees and worship it. Til then, I must make do with everyone else.


Ah yes, of course.  The old "Everyone else does it too" excuse.  That's anemic and very convenient.  I'm sure the other hate groups say the same thing.  

Get used to it.  Feminism is a hate group.  I have pointed out this link to lots of feminists and not one has ever argued with it:

Quote
David Byron has done some excellent work on this idea and has mapped out the characteristics of a hate group:

1. Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
2. Propagates discrimination against the target group
3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
4. Teaches that the target group is a threat
5. Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
6. Tolerates violence towards the target group

A good case could be make that feminism fits in nicely.

For more info you can check out his page at

http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/id35.htm

 
Feminism sure fits in nicely with those six criteria don't you think?  Now please tell us how all those "other" groups might fit in.  lol  Cold day in hell indeed.  Face it lkanneg, you are a member of a hate group.  Your support of this ideology is fostering hatred.  Quit while you can.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 17, 2005, 04:55 AM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I've yet to encounter a group that doesn't do that.  When I find that group, I'll probably drop to my knees and worship it.  Til then, I must make do with everyone else.


Well, I dunno - generally here and at MND the articles I see posted have full links, and the entirity of the text is supplied as well.

Ahhh - I like my sacrifices medium rare.  And gold is so overdone.


You do realize she is ignoring you, me ..and hell, a half dozen others, right?  It's a common thing, I have seen it over and over again....nothing new here! :lol:


Well, it's par for the course, when you can't meet the arguments people give you, when they pin you down, pronounce them hostile and negative people, pronounce yourself morally superior, and then pretend you have won.

Most people exit that stage in the second grade.  But then again, we are talking feminists.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 17, 2005, 05:29 AM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I've yet to encounter a group that doesn't do that.  When I find that group, I'll probably drop to my knees and worship it.  Til then, I must make do with everyone else.


Well, I dunno - generally here and at MND the articles I see posted have full links, and the entirity of the text is supplied as well.

Ahhh - I like my sacrifices medium rare.  And gold is so overdone.


You do realize she is ignoring you, me ..and hell, a half dozen others, right?  It's a common thing, I have seen it over and over again....nothing new here! :lol:


;) I'm not ignoring you, DJ, nor half a dozen others.  I only ignore those who have told me directly and unequivocably that they have no interest in debating with me--I assumed that being the case, they weren't interested in my responses to anything they had to say.  (I admit to periodically wondering why they continue to post so fervently to me after making such a declaration, but hey.  Whatever floats your boat, and I'm sure *somebody* on here is reading it.) There've been only three of those posters so far.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 17, 2005, 06:00 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) I'm not ignoring you, DJ, nor half a dozen others.  I only ignore those who have told me directly and unequivocably that they have no interest in debating with me--I assumed that being the case, they weren't interested in my responses to anything they had to say.  (I admit to periodically wondering why they continue to post so fervently to me after making such a declaration, but hey.  Whatever floats your boat, and I'm sure *somebody* on here is reading it.) There've been only three of those posters so far.


Silly stuff.  I assume that I'm on your list.  I never told you directly and unequivocably that I had no interest in debating you, I just responded to your statements in a way you didn't like.  A unilateral decision on your part is fine, but not when you misrepresent it.

But I'm not going to get mired down in the bog of your "list".  Carry on.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 17, 2005, 06:05 AM
What's funny is that I'm seeing more and more parallels with a former poster here named Amber.  There used to be an actual "Ignore" function here - it would just eliminate posts in your view of threads from the people you selected - and I remember that Gonzokid and I were also on her ignore list.  She was also in the military and then studied engineering a bit later in life.  That cite from the same pages she had her website on was also a hoot.

It borders on the Doppelgänger phenomenon.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 17, 2005, 08:38 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote

I've yet to encounter a group that doesn't do that. When I find that group, I'll probably drop to my knees and worship it. Til then, I must make do with everyone else.


Ah yes, of course.  The old "Everyone else does it too" excuse.  That's anemic and very convenient.  I'm sure the other hate groups say the same thing.  .


It's not an excuse...it's an observation.  ;)

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Get used to it.  Feminism is a hate group.  I have pointed out this link to lots of feminists and not one has ever argued with it:

Quote
David Byron has done some excellent work on this idea and has mapped out the characteristics of a hate group:

1. Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
2. Propagates discrimination against the target group
3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
4. Teaches that the target group is a threat
5. Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
6. Tolerates violence towards the target group

A good case could be make that feminism fits in nicely.

For more info you can check out his page at

http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/id35.htm

 
Feminism sure fits in nicely with those six criteria don't you think?.


Not as well as the MRM, as characterized by some of  the posters here, does.  ;)

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Now please tell us how all those "other" groups might fit in.  lol  Cold day in hell indeed. .


Must be 50 below.  :lol:  

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Face it lkanneg, you are a member of a hate group.  Your support of this ideology is fostering hatred.  Quit while you can.


;) But I'm not a member of MRM.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 17, 2005, 09:09 AM
Quote
David Byron has done some excellent work on this idea and has mapped out the characteristics of a hate group:

1. Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
2. Propagates discrimination against the target group
3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
4. Teaches that the target group is a threat
5. Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
6. Tolerates violence towards the target group

http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/id35.htm

 
Feminism sure fits in nicely with those six criteria don't you think?.[/quote]  

Not as well as the MRM, as characterized by some of  the posters here, does.  ;)[/quote]

1)  There are some people here that advocate lesser rights for women, I'll give you that.  But the caveat is lesser rights than women have right now...not lesser rights than men.
2)  Propagating discrimination...well, I can see advocation of discrimination, again, from very few people.  The vast majority on this board do not.  Those that do are regarded suspiciously here, because they are nearly always trolls.
3)  The closest this comes to being true is the belief that women have, by and large, acted in an immoral way by allowing these injustices to expand.  It's called willful blindness.  I think Christ said something on the subject.
4)  The target group IS a threat...in fact, were it not...we would not be here at all.  In fact, it could be said that we are past the "threat" stage.
5)  I have seen absolutely NO evidence of this at all.
6)  No one here would tolerate violence towards women.  Or men.  In fact, even the most vociferous person here would intervene in a violent situation IMHO.  Feminists though...that's a toughie.  While I doubt anyone would initiate violence, I equally doubt anyone would leap to her defense.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that while feminism demonizes those of the male sex, and perpetrates thier hate towards all men, MRM is targeted against a political ideology.  There is an enormous difference.

For example, in WW2 the allied countries united to defeat the NAZI's, not the German people - as is evidenced by the huge influx of materials, labour and money to help rebuild after the war.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 17, 2005, 09:40 AM
Quote
Not as well as the MRM, as characterized by some of the posters here, does.


That's a serious charge.  Please offer evidence supporting your claim.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 17, 2005, 09:43 AM
It is worthwhile to note that lkanneg has not denied that feminism is a hate group.  Instead she tries to deflect things in another direction for the apparent purpose of obfuscation.  

Should we just assume from her silence that she knows she is a member of a hate group?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 17, 2005, 09:57 AM
I think assuming a feminist "knows" anything is a dangerous path to take.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Quasimodo on Sep 17, 2005, 09:58 AM
I would be curious to see how lkanneg could give an equally point-for-point defense of feminism -- that is, other than "that's not my feminism," "nobody I know think like that," "do you judge the MRM on the basis of a few radicals?"
___________________________

(God knows how many winks she would punctuate that response with. IMO, her annoying overuse of :wink: is her way of saying, "Ha-ha, you can't catch me. When you think I pinned down, you can catch me, nah nah nah nah nah nah!" But what it says to me is: "I'm not here to learn or even explore other points of view. I'm here to argue and defend feminism, right or wrong -- see, you can't change my mind.
___________________________

Which is the difference between a feminist seeker (like TBQ once was) and a feminist apologist. (In the early 90s, there was even a branch of N.O.W. [Rochester?] that defied both the state and nat'l orgs to endorse a petition for shared parenting. They at least had the guts to admit that the parent org was wrong.)

Give lkanneg all the proof in the world of the nature of mainstream feminism, and she will still see it as mother's milk... regardless of the end it came out of.
___________________________

question: with sanserif type it's hard to tell. Is the tag "lkanneg" (as in "lick an egg") or "Ikanneg" (as in "I can neg")?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 17, 2005, 10:05 AM
I tend to agree....it's definitely a "see - I'm still superior, I know all these things happen, but you can't get me to admit it" sort of mentality.  The same mentality MOST women have when it comes to this subject.

Which is where the value of having people like her on this board comes in.  See, we can work out our positions with great clarity here, then take them out in the real world and completely PASTE any feminist in a debate without breaking a sweat.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 18, 2005, 06:28 AM
Quote from: "Factory"
Quote
David Byron has done some excellent work on this idea and has mapped out the characteristics of a hate group:

1. Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
2. Propagates discrimination against the target group
3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
4. Teaches that the target group is a threat
5. Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
6. Tolerates violence towards the target group

http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/id35.htm

 
Feminism sure fits in nicely with those six criteria don't you think?.


Quote
Not as well as the MRM, as characterized by some of  the posters here, does.  ;)


Quote from: "Factory"
1)  There are some people here that advocate lesser rights for women, I'll give you that.  But the caveat is lesser rights than women have right now...not lesser rights than men.
2)  Propagating discrimination...well, I can see advocation of discrimination, again, from very few people.  The vast majority on this board do not.  Those that do are regarded suspiciously here, because they are nearly always trolls.
3)  The closest this comes to being true is the belief that women have, by and large, acted in an immoral way by allowing these injustices to expand.  It's called willful blindness.  I think Christ said something on the subject.
4)  The target group IS a threat...in fact, were it not...we would not be here at all.  In fact, it could be said that we are past the "threat" stage.
5)  I have seen absolutely NO evidence of this at all.
6)  No one here would tolerate violence towards women.  Or men.  In fact, even the most vociferous person here would intervene in a violent situation IMHO.  Feminists though...that's a toughie.  While I doubt anyone would initiate violence, I equally doubt anyone would leap to her defense.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that while feminism demonizes those of the male sex, and perpetrates thier hate towards all men, MRM is targeted against a political ideology.  There is an enormous difference.

For example, in WW2 the allied countries united to defeat the NAZI's, not the German people - as is evidenced by the huge influx of materials, labour and money to help rebuild after the war.



I appreciate your thoughtful response, seriously...before I go on I *first* want to say that a lot of you on this board have made very good points about several gender issues in the past that I totally respect and that have changed the way I've looked at both feminism and men's issues.  But to continue:

1. Advocates lesser rights in law for the target group
2. Propagates discrimination against the target group
3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral
4. Teaches that the target group is a threat
5. Uses lies including historical revisionism to spread these views
6. Tolerates violence towards the target group

There are nearly entire threads on this board devoted to justifying and approving of the lesser legal status women had for centuries, and justifying and approving of legally forbidding women to hold certain jobs regardless of whether or not they can meet the job standards.  The theme of the threat of women's power in society is certainly a loud, terrified and angry one that permeates nearly every thread I've participated in on here.  I have only seen two flavors of articles/studies and responses to them posted on this board:  (1) Article/study showing women are inferior based upon a study run by a scientist who openly admits he has spent the last ten years concentrating on proving women are inferior and (2) Articles/studies speaking about something that is anti-woman or in support of women, which is then reviled and belittled by many posters, however, usually without any factual counter-evidence presented.

Here are some quotes from members of this board, about the target group ("women."  Not "feminists."):

And people wonder why girls are useless at math.
From my own experience productivity would have been greatly improved with a reduction in the women in the department.
I've come across a few really smart women in my life. It's actually nice to be around them, but they're hard to find.
BTW, I do recognize the incredible intelligence behind what women have constructed. Yet I'm baffled how they did it.Every time I talk to one she sounds about as swift as a sack of hammers.It's a huge disconnect for me. I guess it must be some sort of rapacious, controlling instinct. A low cunning only women are party to.
In a wonderful not so distant future scientists may very well create a completely life like female robot- with all the necessary plumbing and -the best part- completely customizableMen will be able to cast off the historical parasite that he constantly has to waste his energies taking care of, slap the shrilling fem-beast aside and purchase a real woman straight out of Eden.
ALL of the duplicitous behavior that has adversely affected my career has been from women. ALL.
Genesis really knew what it was talking about. Women by nature are dependants.
Female dependency and submissiveness is obvious to those who have the stomach to be really honest.
It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts.
"It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts." How do I put my name on the waiting list?
"It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts." I don't know, part of the fun of women is disarming and conquering them... with love, of course. Wink
Believe me, if you saw the state of some of the women in London, you would consider banging a 'bot.  Most of them act like men and many are overweight or generally unhealthy. The good looking ones have their heads so far up their own backsides they can't see daylight.
Well, I agree women are subordinated to men, but this is biology, this is nature.
Many women do not achieve anything but rather have their successes handed to them via artifical support constructs.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 18, 2005, 06:33 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
It is worthwhile to note that lkanneg has not denied that feminism is a hate group.  Instead she tries to deflect things in another direction for the apparent purpose of obfuscation.  

Should we just assume from her silence that she knows she is a member of a hate group?


No, I don't think feminism is a "hate" group any more than MRM groups are "hate" groups.  Actually, less so.  However, mainstream feminist movements like NOW do contain some elements of fear of men in general and desire to give women special (superior) legal status.  Which is why I'm not a member of NOW, for instance.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 18, 2005, 06:50 AM
Quote
And people wonder why girls are useless at math.
From my own experience productivity would have been greatly improved with a reduction in the women in the department.
I've come across a few really smart women in my life. It's actually nice to be around them, but they're hard to find.
BTW, I do recognize the incredible intelligence behind what women have constructed. Yet I'm baffled how they did it.Every time I talk to one she sounds about as swift as a sack of hammers.It's a huge disconnect for me. I guess it must be some sort of rapacious, controlling instinct. A low cunning only women are party to.
In a wonderful not so distant future scientists may very well create a completely life like female robot- with all the necessary plumbing and -the best part- completely customizableMen will be able to cast off the historical parasite that he constantly has to waste his energies taking care of, slap the shrilling fem-beast aside and purchase a real woman straight out of Eden.
ALL of the duplicitous behavior that has adversely affected my career has been from women. ALL.
Genesis really knew what it was talking about. Women by nature are dependants.
Female dependency and submissiveness is obvious to those who have the stomach to be really honest.
It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts.
"It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts." How do I put my name on the waiting list?
"It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts." I don't know, part of the fun of women is disarming and conquering them... with love, of course. Wink
Believe me, if you saw the state of some of the women in London, you would consider banging a 'bot. Most of them act like men and many are overweight or generally unhealthy. The good looking ones have their heads so far up their own backsides they can't see daylight
.

lkanneg, I don't like everything that is said here, nor do I agree with all of it, but the above isn't exactly hate speech.

I'm exploring this little gem right now for comparison:

http://www.ihatemen.com/

I'll get back to you.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 18, 2005, 07:05 AM
Can anyone say "DESPERATE SMOKE SCREEN?"

This forum is far from perfect but there are rules that we have about globalizing in a negative fashion about either men or women.  These rules have the added benifit of stopping people like you from unscrupulously impeaching us all as haters.  Your puny attempt to gather cherry picked, isolated quotes  to frantically paint all of the posters here as haters shows just how little ammunition you have to deny the hatefulness of feminism.  Sorry lkanneg, your post says more about you and your impotent attempts to defend feminism  than it does about us.  You are reminding me of the made tv lady who put her fingers in her ears and said "na na na na na na."
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 18, 2005, 07:08 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
It is worthwhile to note that lkanneg has not denied that feminism is a hate group.  Instead she tries to deflect things in another direction for the apparent purpose of obfuscation.  

Should we just assume from her silence that she knows she is a member of a hate group?


No, I don't think feminism is a "hate" group any more than MRM groups are "hate" groups.  Actually, less so.  However, mainstream feminist movements like NOW do contain some elements of fear of men in general and desire to give women special (superior) legal status.  Which is why I'm not a member of NOW, for instance.


So please defend feminism and show us how it is not a hate group.  David Byron has written in the linked site above some very specific reasons why he believes feminism is a hate movement.  If you want me to paste those in I would be happy to do so.  I think it will be simpler if you just tell us how David is wrong.

I don't think you can.  I think you will be trying to shift the ground real soon.  Come on lkanneg give it a shot.   Prove him wrong.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 18, 2005, 07:09 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Can anyone say "DESPERATE SMOKE SCREEN?"

This forum is far from perfect but there are rules that we have about globalizing in a negative fashion about either men or women.  These rules have the added benifit of stopping people like you from unscrupulously impeaching us all as haters.  Your puny attempt to gather cherry picked, isolated quotes  to frantically paint all of the posters here as haters shows just how little ammunition you have to deny the hatefulness of feminism.  Sorry lkanneg, your post says more about you and your impotent attempts to defend feminism  than it does about us.  You are reminding me of the made tv lady who put her fingers in her ears and said "na na na na na na."


(sigh) I'm afraid the reminding that you're experiencing is of your own behavior...amazingly enough, that you are projecting onto a woman.  ;)
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 18, 2005, 07:12 AM
Quote from: "contrarymary"

http://www.ihatemen.com/

I'll get back to you.


While you're at it, you should explore its "sister" site, put up by the same creator.  The "ihatemen" faqs direct you to it:

http://www.ihatewomen.com/
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Galt on Sep 18, 2005, 07:24 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
(sigh) I'm afraid the reminding that you're experiencing is of your own behavior...amazingly enough, that you are projecting onto a woman.  ;)


Why didn't you just type "I know you are, but what am I?" - it's shorter.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 18, 2005, 07:36 AM
Let's see if you can stick with the question lkanneg rather than trying shift the ground away and to make it personal.  Come on and tell us how David is wrong.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: PowerMan72 on Sep 18, 2005, 08:07 AM
:jerk:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 18, 2005, 08:31 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "contrarymary"

http://www.ihatemen.com/

I'll get back to you.


While you're at it, you should explore its "sister" site, put up by the same creator.  The "ihatemen" faqs direct you to it:

http://www.ihatewomen.com/


Yes, I saw that as well, and what that tells me is that some persons of both sexes really need to vent, some are just messing, some have legitimate gripes, and some are just assholes.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Sep 18, 2005, 09:54 AM
lkanneg has made me think. I lay awake last night thinking about her posts. She has made me realize that standing up for myself and my sons is wrong, because women get pregnant. How can one argue against the profound injustice that the goddess has inflicted on women? Women are discriminated against because they get pregnant. Women get pregnant because that's nature. Nature is either by divine design or the result of millions of years of evolution depending on your belief system. Either way, getting pregnant trumps any and all other issues, grievences, concerns or inequities in the universe.

Therefore, I bid you all farewell. Mr. Nickle has enjoyed posting here but it is time he moved on to fight against all the wrongs women face. He knows that this will not benefit himself or his children, his friends or any of the men of the world. But, Mr. Nickle does not worry. He believes in the words of feminists that if we just keep doing what we're told and keep looking out for them, then, that someday, possibly in the far-far future, feminists will make sure that men get what they deserve (which will be whatever feminists deem appropriate). That's good enough for me.

Most everyone I've encountered here has been kind to me and I've enjoyed the exchanges we've had. I feel honoured to have learned some of the stories of your lives.

Once again, farewell brothers and sisters. And thank-you Dr. Evil for putting up the dough and effort to create this space. You've probably saved many lives that would have been lost to despair.

:xyxwave:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 18, 2005, 10:48 AM
Hey! A lot of those quotes are from me.

I didn't realize I could count towards a *male* hate group. As for the rest of it, they sounded more like humorous statements to me. A robot that squirts beer out of it's privates-- yeah that's really hateful.

BTW, I don't think recognizing differences amounts to hate. Only in world where everyone has to be the same to get along -- your typical liberal utopia type thing: "everyone is *really* WHITE inside!" -- is recognizing a difference synonymous with hate.

In most situations where one group is discriminating against another, *both* experience hatred and anger. The one in power uses their hatred and anger to justify their exploitation of the group not in power. In fact the hatred of the one in power usually is acute, specialized and targeted. Whereas the anger of the group not in power tends to be diffuse and poorly targeted... since *this* group is often subject to the internalization of lack of value.

The hard part is seperating the anger of the oppressor from the anger of the oppressed.

The only way to legitimately do this is to ignore the issue of "hate" and look at which group has the greater amount of choices, which group bears the responsiblility for those choices and which group is materially benefiting from the situation.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 18, 2005, 12:11 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Hey! A lot of those quotes are from me.


Only two, I think!  ;)

Quote from: "typhonblue"
BTW, I don't think recognizing differences amounts to hate.


I was following the definition of a hate group provided to me:  3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral.  The way the differences (or I should say, the chosen perception of differences) were recognized fit the above criteria quite well.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 18, 2005, 12:11 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
some persons of both sexes really need to vent, some are just messing, some have legitimate gripes, and some are just assholes.


I can certainly agree to that without reservations.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 18, 2005, 01:55 PM
Once again, I definitely agreee there are a few weenies here, just as in any group larger than me...( :)  )

So the question remains...can I go to any random feminist site and quote anyone out of context to "prove" feminism is a hate group?  tell you what...I'll be sure to include the full post, just so you know I'm not cherry-picking or taking out of context.  Would that be fair?

hell, can I do that if I just promise to limit the quotes to one person?  Or would it be better if I limited it to one thread in a disussion group?

How about if I limit it to one site...like ...say...Hugo's blog.  After all, it's even a site that's run by a MAN, and therefore much friendlier to men than ...say...feministing.com.

I can guarantee you that should this sort of thing arise, then your little list of out of context, mostly tongue in cheek misquotes will pale in both severity of hate, as well as volume, by multiples.  I believe, for your sake, that you don't really want to get into that can of worms at all.

But if so, let me know...  I'll limit myself to iVillage, feministing, and hugo's place - forewarned is forearmed.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 18, 2005, 02:03 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Hey! A lot of those quotes are from me.


Only two, I think!  ;)

Quote from: "typhonblue"
BTW, I don't think recognizing differences amounts to hate.


I was following the definition of a hate group provided to me:  3. Teaches that the target group is inherently inferior and immoral.  The way the differences (or I should say, the chosen perception of differences) were recognized fit the above criteria quite well.


As to the above-quoted...well, first off, you will have to show me the pamphlets or news releases, or "research" that the men's movement has issued/condoned to this effect.  Barring that, show me the speeches or posts that were genuinely anti-woman without castigation from others on the board.  This would, of course, preclude any posts that were based on actual fact - that the truth might make you feel bad is NOT fitting the criteria...you can FEEL anything about anything should you choose to.

Then, we'll talk about prevalence, severity, and effects of said bias in society at large.

Ready...?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 18, 2005, 02:52 PM
Let's see if you can stick with the question lkanneg rather than trying shift the ground away. Come on and tell us how David is wrong.  The six criteria are all involved in determining a hate group.  Tell us how David is incorrect in his assessments.  Prove him wrong.  Let's hear it.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 18, 2005, 03:12 PM
I think people may be missing something in this misogynist/misandrist debate.

Fundementally the misogynist wants women to dissapear or, failing that, to be as invisible as possible.

Likewise the misandrist wants men to dissapear or, failing that, be as invisible as possible.

I haven't seen any MRAs-- not a single one-- or even so called "misogynists" ever express a desire for women to dissapear.  

Have I seen this desire expressed by feminists and misandrists? All the time.

That's the real essense of a hate-group...
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: sethay on Sep 18, 2005, 03:21 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Let's see if you can stick with the question lkanneg rather than trying shift the ground away. Come on and tell us how David is wrong.  The six criteria are all involved in determining a hate group.  Tell us how David is incorrect in his assessments.  Prove him wrong.  Let's hear it.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 18, 2005, 03:41 PM
I love sites like ihatemen and ihatewomen!

ihatemen basically is women saying one of the two following things:

1. How dare a man have needs outside of mine.

2. Men are disgusting creatures with horrible bodily secretions.

ihatewomen basically says the following:

1. Men are people too.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 18, 2005, 04:57 PM
Let's be fair, typhon.  After only five seconds, I found this:

itsme

Women are in cahoots with the devil.


I dont agree with religious stuff as you know, but I sort of agree of what you say in that quote

women bring evilness and negativity to our society.

you see how women always tell us guys to be positive especially when we say a bad thing about the female gender females say we are being negative?

I think females create all the negativity by the way they treat males in society, and then women sit here and tell us to be positive about the negativity they throw at us


http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=206461&messageid=1126952171&lp=1127084416



Itsme...

Women have no power...There are plenty of spiritually strong dynamic men who are in charge and in control...

What we are looking at presently is a social engineering design in the beginning stages...

Again men are VERY afraid of marriage and commentment...Men know that they can always get laid cheaper than they can support some lazy woman...

Eventually men will not marry which is the whole idea...Illuminati men are simply making a few men pay for getting married so that they can brainwash other men into thinking that marriage is very risky and not in their best interests...

By George...I think those luciferian madmen have almost succeed again...

With marriage removed this will give men more women to have sex with and to take advantage of...

Remember...one of the primary goals of the NWO is to;

"Make every woman the property of every man"


SuperDuper


http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=206461&messageid=1126467183&lp=1127082810


If it is true that women are not saints merely by virtue of being women, would it not also follow that men are not saints merely by virtue of being men? Or is that misdanrist?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 18, 2005, 04:59 PM
Quote
I haven't seen any MRAs-- not a single one-- or even so called "misogynists" ever express a desire for women to dissapear.


You're not being fair, typhon.  I've read this sentiment more than a few times in more than a few places.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 18, 2005, 05:54 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
I haven't seen any MRAs-- not a single one-- or even so called "misogynists" ever express a desire for women to dissapear.


You're not being fair, typhon.  I've read this sentiment more than a few times in more than a few places.


Okay, you have. But I haven't.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: contrarymary on Sep 18, 2005, 05:56 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Quote
I haven't seen any MRAs-- not a single one-- or even so called "misogynists" ever express a desire for women to dissapear.


You're not being fair, typhon.  I've read this sentiment more than a few times in more than a few places.


Okay, you have. But I haven't.


. :D   Thanks for not getting angry at me.   I don't much care for unfairness.

BTW, is that you on your website?  You're not only beautiful on the inside, but on the outside as well.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 18, 2005, 06:00 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
Let's be fair, typhon.  After only five seconds, I found this:


I would actually agree with the first of the two statements.

It's quite probable that women have the greatest hand in creating negativity in our society today... and usually that is a result of the way they devalue men.

As for the second... sounds like more weird illuminati business. If the man wasn't being sarcastic he is a kook.

And as for your conclusion... I don't really think any men are saints. But niether do I think that men dismiss and belittle women the way women do men.

Black and white. If a man expects a woman to benefit him somehow everyone thinks he's being a chauvanistic pig; if a woman expects a man to benefit her, then it's just par for the course. Further men rarely express the idea that women are undesirable... whereas women are constantly maligning a man's sexuality and desirability.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 18, 2005, 06:06 PM
Let me put it even more simply.

I mentioned that in Saudi Arabia some men would refuse to touch any female over the age of 10. And if some accidental touch occured they would react with disgust.

Well, that's what women are doing to men in the west. They are reacting like men and men's bodies hold some sort of foul taint.

Believe me, it's quite dehumanizing. And I never see the reverse.

Correction... I have seen the reverse but only among men who identify as gay.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 18, 2005, 06:46 PM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
If it is true that women are not saints merely by virtue of being women, would it not also follow that men are not saints merely by virtue of being men? Or is that misdanrist?


What is misandrist is the idea that men are devils for merely being men.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Factory on Sep 18, 2005, 07:41 PM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "contrarymary"
If it is true that women are not saints merely by virtue of being women, would it not also follow that men are not saints merely by virtue of being men? Or is that misdanrist?


What is misandrist is the idea that men are devils for merely being men.


Exactly....and that is what we are made out to be everywhere you look.

And THAT is why I have such a hard time with someone who says "I personally never see anything like THAT".....because all it means is they are wilfully blind to the problem.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 20, 2005, 08:19 PM
lkanneg, the link you provided (page eight) regarding womens so called achievements in the military is a blatant attempt at feminist historical revisionism.

Just one example I will cite holds the whole site into question in regard to it's validity.

Jessica Lynch and her receiving the bronze star undeservedly and moreso fraudulently - is a perfect example of the politically correctoids and feminists in the military and goverment who fanatically seek to change the truth.

Anyone who is aware of the story knows that Jessica Lynch was not deserved of any accolade -- only cowardice. Her vehicle came under attack and from then on she failed to be anything but a hindrance and major liability, as opposed to a effective part of a cohesive fighting group.

Nine of her US comrades were killed, the reason she wasn't killed was because contrary to many US gynocentric PC news reports - she in actuality hid under the vehicle whereby she proceeded to urinate and defecate herself.

More importantly she didn't unload her weapon until the last bullet had been dispensed - gi jane style contrary to current news reports, her so called brave heroics were sickeningly stolen from the Male sergeant who as far as Im aware has not posthumously recieved any kind of deserved citation.

She had supposedly received multiple gunshot and knife wounds alongside being raped, all of which later proved to be just disgusting lies, she was rescued by special forces who had the all clear that the hospital where she was held posed no military threat to her so called dramatic rescue.

The way the news was reported was a fraudulent govermental induced media spin, in part to draw attention away from the realities of the war and secondly to pander to the feminists and political correctoids who seek to foist there insidious historical revisionism on us all - regardless as to the price of truth and the honour of the sergeant whos brave endeavours were stolen and accredited to Lynch. Shame on those who participated in this despicable mass fraud.

A bronze star for cowardice, in the first and second world war Men were shot for far less by their own side. This makes a mockery of the actions of so many millions of brave men who have fallen in battle.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Darth Sidious on Sep 20, 2005, 11:23 PM
Quote from: "Celtic Druid"
lkanneg, the link you provided (page eight) regarding womens so called achievements in the military is a blatant attempt at feminist historical revisionism.

Just one example I will cite holds the whole site into question in regard to it's validity.

Jessica Lynch and her receiving the bronze star undeservedly and moreso fraudulently - is a perfect example of the politically correctoids and feminists in the military and goverment who fanatically seek to change the truth.

Anyone who is aware of the story knows that Jessica Lynch was not deserved of any accolade -- only cowardice. Her vehicle came under attack and from then on she failed to be anything but a hindrance and major liability, as opposed to a effective part of a cohesive fighting group.

Nine of her US comrades were killed, the reason she wasn't killed was because contrary to many US gynocentric PC news reports - she in actuality hid under the vehicle whereby she proceeded to urinate and defecate herself.

More importantly she didn't unload her weapon until the last bullet had been dispensed - gi jane style contrary to current news reports, her so called brave heroics were sickeningly stolen from the Male sergeant who as far as Im aware has not posthumously recieved any kind of deserved citation.

She had supposedly received multiple gunshot and knife wounds alongside being raped, all of which later proved to be just disgusting lies, she was rescued by special forces who had the all clear that the hospital where she was held posed no military threat to her so called dramatic rescue.

The way the news was reported was a fraudulent govermental induced media spin, in part to draw attention away from the realities of the war and secondly to pander to the feminists and political correctoids who seek to foist there insidious historical revisionism on us all - regardless as to the price of truth and the honour of the sergeant whos brave endeavours were stolen and accredited to Lynch. Shame on those who participated in this despicable mass fraud.

A bronze star for cowardice, in the first and second world war Men were shot for far less by their own side. This makes a mockery of the actions of so many millions of brave men who have fallen in battle.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html


Excellent post about Jessica Lynch's "heroics."
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: neoteny on Sep 21, 2005, 01:26 AM
Quote from: "Celtic Druid"
A bronze star for cowardice, in the first and second world war Men were shot for far less by their own side.


Just for the sake of historical precision: the only US soldier executed for defection ('cowardice') since the Civil War was Private Eddie Slovik, in WWII.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 21, 2005, 01:45 AM
Quote from: "neoteny"
Quote from: "Celtic Druid"
A bronze star for cowardice, in the first and second world war Men were shot for far less by their own side.


Just for the sake of historical precision: the only US soldier executed for defection ('cowardice') since the Civil War was Private Eddie Slovik, in WWII.



Ok, Im speaking from a British perspective whereby I know over three hundred at least were "shot at dawn" for cowardice - I shall endeavour to dig up the specifics.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 21, 2005, 01:57 AM
Soldiers shot for Cowardice

First World War

However, during the war, 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers were shot on the orders of military top brass and senior officers. In contrast, the Germans only executed 25 of their own. The Americans executed none of their soldiers.

http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ww1.htm


Second World War

We now know that in the first winter of the war on the Eastern Front in 1941-42, more than 8,000 Russian soldiers died not in action but shot by their own army for cowardice or desertion. During the battle of Stalingrad alone, another 12,000 men of the Red Army were put to death pour encourager les autres.

At least 15,000 German servicemen were executed for dereliction of duty.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/08/how_good_was_the_good_war?pg=full
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: neoteny on Sep 21, 2005, 05:51 AM
Quote from: "Celtic Druid"
Quote from: "neoteny"
Quote from: "Celtic Druid"
A bronze star for cowardice, in the first and second world war Men were shot for far less by their own side.


Just for the sake of historical precision: the only US soldier executed for defection ('cowardice') since the Civil War was Private Eddie Slovik, in WWII.



Ok, Im speaking from a British perspective whereby I know over three hundred at least were "shot at dawn" for cowardice - I shall endeavour to dig up the specifics.


That's fine; I just wanted to make a point about the US where Jessica Lynch is from.

Furthermore, I intended to say (historical) 'accuracy', not 'precision' (which are different things).
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Sep 21, 2005, 06:59 AM
WHile the men here certainly can get sick of women, none of them hate women. I have yet to hear of one gay man (not that it would be bad, but that they are all or mostly still heterosexual means they have not yet given up on women)

The men have valid points about limiting female participation in situations which endanger the men, such as front line combat, fire fighting, and police work. There is proven evidence that women in general cannot possibly do the same level of work as men in general, based on body mass differences. Even then most guys here feel that if a woman can meet the same exact physical standards the men meet,  then she should be able to have the job.

Many, many feminists are lesbian. There is a push in feminist circles to be lesbian (I was in those circles at one time) They despise men. While men fight for 50/50 shared parenting, I have read dozens of feminist sites which proclaim fathers are worthless and not necessary for raising kids. There are books and programs out there in main stream culture "Why Men are Dogs"  "Bring your Husband to Heel" which objectify and dehumanize men, which are embraced by women and society in general, but if you say "women are innately less capable at math than men", which can be proven, and watch out.

Feminism pits itself against men as the enemy. MRM pits feminism as it's enemy.


While there are men out there who objectify women, who want them barefoot and pregnant, the mainstream men's rights supporters publicly denounce that thinking. The men on this board would  not put up with real misogyny. Feminists laugh at misandry. Since they feel men have always had the power, they feel justified in dehumanizing men.  Most mra's feel that feminism has gotten out of hand, and they seek to balance the equation. Most mras look back and think that life was pretty fair until feminism came along. WHile women had less political and economic power, they also had far less responsibilites, they were protected and cared for, and they had social/family power. The myth that all husbands could beat their wives can be debunked with a 5 minute google search of the law, which in many cases protected women from harm.

I am reading a book now, which is written by a feminist. "Men, women and aggression". The whole book is based on the premise that women's violence is justified and excusable because it always stems from stress and emotion, but men's abuse is never justified because it always stems from a need to control and dominate. Hello, can you get any more simplistic that that? I have no idea what men she spoke with, but her examples are outragous. She says, after talking about a woman who hit her husband with a glass and then kicked out his knee, that he could have prevented it if he had been more understanding and listened better. If anyone here said that about a woman being battered, not only would they be wrong, they would be jumped on and beat until they recanted. Never blame the victim.... unless he is a man.

Feminism has a long track record of stepping all over men. No one can erase that. MRM has learned from that, and contains a large number of men who try very hard to keep the movement on track, who set parameters so that in 50 years, women are not the ones getting the shaft  and the cycle starts all over again.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 21, 2005, 07:13 AM
Great post BQ.  Excellent summary of MRM's.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Wookie on Sep 21, 2005, 08:48 AM
What the Doc said, Amazing BQ, you are a great spokesman (woman) for the movement.

Wookie
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Mr. Bad on Sep 21, 2005, 09:04 AM
I have to Third that one BQ - outstanding summary of the differences between the MRM and feminism.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 21, 2005, 09:53 AM
Dr Evil, why do you continue to indulge this "things" views, its not a life or death scenario - every time you respond to it you validate its existence.

This thing will continue to waste your time and suck the life out of you and prove its pathetic existence as a consequence by virtue of your actions!
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Sep 21, 2005, 10:07 AM
To be fair, Ikanneg for all her pro's and con's has indeed boosted the activity of the board, and gotten us all to talk more about what the movement is about. These are good things.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 21, 2005, 10:10 AM
Quote
Dr Evil, why do you continue to indulge this "things" views, its not a life or death scenario - every time you respond to it you validate its existence.


Please explain what you are talking about.
[/quote]
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Stallywood on Sep 21, 2005, 10:13 AM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
WHile the men here certainly can get sick of women, none of them hate women. I have yet to hear of one gay man (not that it would be bad, but that they are all or mostly still heterosexual means they have not yet given up on women)

The men have valid points about limiting female participation in situations which endanger the men, such as front line combat, fire fighting, and police work. There is proven evidence that women in general cannot possibly do the same level of work as men in general, based on body mass differences. Even then most guys here feel that if a woman can meet the same exact physical standards the men meet,  then she should be able to have the job.

Many, many feminists are lesbian. There is a push in feminist circles to be lesbian (I was in those circles at one time) They despise men. While men fight for 50/50 shared parenting, I have read dozens of feminist sites which proclaim fathers are worthless and not necessary for raising kids. There are books and programs out there in main stream culture "Why Men are Dogs"  "Bring your Husband to Heel" which objectify and dehumanize men, which are embraced by women and society in general, but if you say "women are innately less capable at math than men", which can be proven, and watch out.

Feminism pits itself against men as the enemy. MRM pits feminism as it's enemy.


While there are men out there who objectify women, who want them barefoot and pregnant, the mainstream men's rights supporters publicly denounce that thinking. The men on this board would  not put up with real misogyny. Feminists laugh at misandry. Since they feel men have always had the power, they feel justified in dehumanizing men.  Most mra's feel that feminism has gotten out of hand, and they seek to balance the equation. Most mras look back and think that life was pretty fair until feminism came along. WHile women had less political and economic power, they also had far less responsibilites, they were protected and cared for, and they had social/family power. The myth that all husbands could beat their wives can be debunked with a 5 minute google search of the law, which in many cases protected women from harm.

I am reading a book now, which is written by a feminist. "Men, women and aggression". The whole book is based on the premise that women's violence is justified and excusable because it always stems from stress and emotion, but men's abuse is never justified because it always stems from a need to control and dominate. Hello, can you get any more simplistic that that? I have no idea what men she spoke with, but her examples are outragous. She says, after talking about a woman who hit her husband with a glass and then kicked out his knee, that he could have prevented it if he had been more understanding and listened better. If anyone here said that about a woman being battered, not only would they be wrong, they would be jumped on and beat until they recanted. Never blame the victim.... unless he is a man.

Feminism has a long track record of stepping all over men. No one can erase that. MRM has learned from that, and contains a large number of men who try very hard to keep the movement on track, who set parameters so that in 50 years, women are not the ones getting the shaft  and the cycle starts all over again.


Good job. Although I think objectifying a woman to some degree,is  normal man behavior. I have never approached a woman because I thought she might be smart. Still though great post.
Stally
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 21, 2005, 10:23 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote
Dr Evil, why do you continue to indulge this "things" views, its not a life or death scenario - every time you respond to it you validate its existence.


Please explain what you are talking about.


Your almost addictive fix that is lkanneg.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 21, 2005, 11:19 AM
Quote
Your almost addictive fix that is lkanneg.


Hmmm, just how is this my addictive fix?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Sep 21, 2005, 11:33 AM
Stally, there is a difference between appreciating a woman's looks and objectifying them. Do most men look at a woman and say "there is a cum bucket?" Probably not, although they may say "there is a hot chick and I would like to *fill in the blank*.

The difference is that most women are seen as humans, even if men's interest in those humans is only a physical one.

Feminists (the loud, main stream ones) do not see men as humans, they see them as abominations in need of isolation, repair, or irradication.

Men see women for what they are, and women in general  do not like that because we tend to want to be seen for what we think we should be like, and for what we value.

Women see men for what women want men to be like.


(Probably only Roy will understand this)

OK, time for me to stop, I am confusing myself now :?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 21, 2005, 11:34 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote
Your almost addictive fix that is lkanneg.


Hmmm, just how is this my addictive fix?


By virtue of your attendance to her postings regardless.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 21, 2005, 11:48 AM
Quote

By virtue of your attendance to her postings regardless.


I haven't posted here in two days with the exception of telling BQ I thought her post was excellent.  Given that it seems safe to say that your observational skills are sorely lacking.  Seems like maybe you have some other agenda eh?  What might that be?
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 21, 2005, 12:01 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Quote

By virtue of your attendance to her postings regardless.


I haven't posted here in two days with the exception of telling BQ I thought her post was excellent.  Given that it seems safe to say that your observational skills are sorely lacking.  Seems like maybe you have some other agenda eh?  What might that be?


Sorry Evil my only agenda is the same as yours sir, try again and check my worthy posts - paranoia aside.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 21, 2005, 12:03 PM
That's a warnng for you Celtic for a personal attack on lkanneg.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 21, 2005, 12:06 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
That's a warnng for you Celtic for a personal attack on lkanneg.


Explain please the dynamics of your "warning."Also what constituted a perceived personal attack on lkanneg!
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 21, 2005, 12:10 PM
Quote
Dr Evil, why do you continue to indulge this "things" views, its not a life or death scenario - every time you respond to it you validate its existence.

This thing will continue to waste your time and suck the life out of you and prove its pathetic existence as a consequence by virtue of your actions!


Referring to another member of this community as "thing" and then referring to "its pathetic existence" is in my book a personal attack.  ITs fine to attack the ideas but not the person.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 21, 2005, 12:11 PM
If these are your rules then I shall gladly adhere to them, however I thought what I said was more descriptive than a personal attack.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: dr e on Sep 21, 2005, 12:18 PM
The rules are that there are no personal attacks.  That includes all board members with no exceptions.  You might want to read the rules.  They are posted in a sticky at the top of the main forum.
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 21, 2005, 12:21 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
The rules are that there are no personal attacks.  That includes all board members with no exceptions.  You might want to read the rules.  They are posted in a sticky at the top of the main forum.


Thanks for the heads up Evil its been extremely informative and I have learned so much - thanks.

Im really silly some times I don't even know my own mind some times, its great you have pointed me in the right direction otherwise I wouldn't have even found the exit.

By the way the above is sarcasm - Its a British thing I guess!
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Celtic Druid on Sep 24, 2005, 01:14 AM
Quote from: "poiuyt"
Quote
Im really silly some times I don't even know my own mind some times, its great you have pointed me in the right direction...

...take heart. Even michel focault established that the creative force of madness is invariably repressed in the order of things. Look at what has become of other gender comrades for example


My last post was sarcasm by the way, its something that is a prerequisite to being British I guess.  :lol:
Title: Question for lkanneg
Post by: Stallywood on Sep 24, 2005, 07:25 AM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Stally, there is a difference between appreciating a woman's looks and objectifying them. Do most men look at a woman and say "there is a cum bucket?" Probably not, although they may say "there is a hot chick and I would like to *fill in the blank*.

The difference is that most women are seen as humans, even if men's interest in those humans is only a physical one.

Feminists (the loud, main stream ones) do not see men as humans, they see them as abominations in need of isolation, repair, or irradication.

Men see women for what they are, and women in general  do not like that because we tend to want to be seen for what we think we should be like, and for what we value.

Women see men for what women want men to be like.


(Probably only Roy will understand this)

OK, time for me to stop, I am confusing myself now :?




Got ya Im just a regular type guy.  :lol:
Stally