Yup. Feminist propaganda. Learn to recognize it. I will never condone putting women on the front lines in a war. Fluoride has done it's job well.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
An example of people's stupidity?
- Thread starter sawah
- Start date
Yup. Feminist propaganda. Learn to recognize it. I will never condone putting women on the front lines in a war. Fluoride has done it's job well.
Aknazer
Regular Member
I have absolutely no issue with women being on the front lines so long as they are truely capable of handling it. But then again I feel that if we are going to truly integrate women into the military that we should have communal bath/living quarters just as how we do for blacks now. Of course I know that our society can't handle that right now, but for proper integration there needs to be zero segregation and only one standard.
HUH?????? Communal baths? Women on the front lines? That's just commie garbage there. That kind of stuff was never heard of until the commies gained control of Europe. Any man who would put a woman on the front lines of a battle doesn't have testicles or testosterone. Of course, they killed General Patton before he could warn America about these rats. Man am I ever glad we don't live in a world that goes by your standards.
if there is one thing i am acutely aware of, it is that having a law degree DOES not mean one knows criminal/procedural/constitutional law better than a decent (say 5 yrs experience) street cop.
i know cops who ARE attorneys, and those who aren't/
the problem with people who are physiically weak and/or tactically unskilled, is that they frequently must use a substantially higher level of force when they meet with resistance. that's REGARDLESS of gender. also, in a civil trial/shooting review board, etc. a smaller, less physically capable officer IS given MORE leeway vis a vis force since the presumption is that they will be overpowered using the same force a stronger officer would have to use
you are most likely a law abiding citizen. cops frequently deal with criminals who physically resist
given a situation where verbal judo does NOT work, a more physically capable cop is less likely to have to use higher level of force, and less likely to cause the suspect or himself physical injury
this is REGARDLESS of gender.
it's kind of like saying a cop shouldn't need a gun. 99% of the time, they don't. but when they do, it's nice to have. SPD uses force, for example, in a fraction of 1% of all contacts. iow, it's not needed frequently, but when it IS needed, it makes a big difference
i have had the pleasure of training with the strongest woman lb for lb in the country. this isn't a gender issue. women CAN get strong, but they have to work much harder at it than men, and are on average much weaker than men
setting aside your rhetoric about today's LEO's supposedly not being peace officers, ...
being a cop is not a MAN's job.
Aknazer
Regular Member
And why is that? Because "chivary" made you believe that a woman can't defend herself, or "religion" that taught you it is immoral to see a naked girl that's not your wife? Plenty of women can defend theirselves and it's completely possible to see someone of the opposite sex and not think sexually of her. And who said I heard this from anyone or got the idea from someone? I'm saying that if we are going to "integrate" the services then it needs to be 100% integration and not the integration we have now where it's basically "seperate but equal" for the two sexes. Only it isn't equal because females have a lesser physical standard to achieve and have various restrictions on what jobs they can do because of their sex (hmm where have I seen this before? Oh yea, similar arguements for preventing blacks from being anything other than cook). Also if a woman WANTS to be on the front lines AND can pass the requirements to serve on the front lines same as a man, why shouldn't she be able to? Oh, because you view all women as lesser humans who can't possibly handle that which a man could handle.
And just because you couldn't handle seeing a woman on the frontlines or possibly die in front of you doesn't mean we're all so weak willed/stomached as you are. If a woman wants equal treatment then she's going to get it and she better not complain when treated as "one of the guys." Quit projecting your issues with something onto everyone else.
Nope. Simply because I didn't buy into the communist feminist brainwashing that you did. I'm not saying women are weak. My woman is one of the strongest people I know, but I would never put her on the front lines of a war. Real men don't do such things, and real women don't ask to be in such a position. You've forgotten your proper role, because of a lifetime of feminist propaganda. You didn't realize you were being swindled into destroying the family unit. Taking the woman out of the home was a calculated move, and by puffing up your ego with feminist propaganda, they actually got you to think it was a good idea.
If women want equality, why is there is a lesser physical standard? Ponder that one for a while.
Aknazer
Regular Member
I'm going to start with the bolded part. You need to go read my posts again. I've been saying from the beginning that women should have the EXACT SAME physical standards as men. There's no need for me to "ponder that one for a while" because I've been saying it from the beginning. A job (any job) should only have ONE requirement regardless of age, gender, or ethnicity and either you can meet it and are qualified for the job, or you can't meet it and thus aren't qualified for the job.
Now on to your main paragraph. I like how you start using things like "communist feminist," "real men," and "real women." In essence you're trying to de-humanize anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view (I'm sure there's a more accurate term than "de-humanize" but I can't think of it). You are a sexist pure and simple. If someone doesn't fit into your clearly defined roles for the sexes, they are clearly and absolutely wrong and are to be villianized and ridiculed. You also are staying away from why a woman shouldn't be able to do these jobs. If they shouldn't be on the front lines then explain WHY and not just "because they're a woman" because that's a non-answer. Then you go on about "taking the woman out of the home," so what women shouldn't be allowed to get ANY job and are to only be at home? And if they can get some jobs, then why not others?
Simply put, by following the logic that you have laid out from your posts women shouldn't work and you think the "feminist movement" is a "communist" thing that is ruining our country. I guess we should take away a woman's right to vote while we're at it because those dirty feminists fought for those rights too.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I was thinking "fired", but... I guess their replacements can be women.
Define "real men" and "real women". And then let's all drop this annoyingly ridiculous "debate".
Last edited:
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
Sam Colt's Equalizers have been forgotten by the PC amen-corner
Simple. Real men are the type who wouldn't think of sending their women to the front lines of a war. There is no debate. Just feminist propaganda, and those who oppose it.
Yes, feminist propaganda from the commies taught women to leave the home and go to work because that makes them "equal". Never mind their specific roles, those no longer matter. Children don't need a mother, the state knows what's best for them. Now families are in shambles, children are raised by the state, and our nation is falling apart, but at least women can have a career and pretend they are equals! It was a coordinated effort by a specific group of people, and that is no secret. Maybe you are one of them, or just seriously deluded. What you are doing is trying to ignore that there are specific roles for the different genders. If there weren't, we wouldn't need different genders, now would we? Should men do the breast feeding and women plow the fields? OH I SEE!
Aknazer
Regular Member
Well I just checked and my male parts (as a nice way of putting it for the forum) are definately real, so no "fake" man here... Though what I am is a free thinker and not one who blindly buys into BS like what you're pandering. Also nice way of completely avoiding how your entire arguement is the exact same as used to rationalize slaves and segregation. It is nothing but a tool to try and keep a group of people oppressed.
Since you seem to know so much about "commies" please tell me when they managed to suddenly start this "propaganda" as you say. Given that the feminist movement started in the 19th century and communism wasn't even really considered until the early 20th century I'm curious as to where they got their time machine and I'm wondering why they only went back to feed propaganda to women. I also like how you say "...pretend they are equals!..." as that is flat out saying that your view is that they are inferior to men. Also since you say it was a "coordinated effort by a specific group of people, and that is no secret" while stating that the group of people were the "commies" please give a cite. After all cites are required per the forum rules.
As for the whole "families are in shambles, children are raised by the state, blah blah blah" bit, that is because of people in general not doing their jobs as parents and has nothing to do with women being treated equally. I mean there's plenty of women who don't leave the home and leech off of things like welfare and their familes are STILL in shambles with their children being raised by the state (or rather, not raised which is part of the issue). So no, women having a choice of what they want to do isn't what's causing the nation to fall apart. People wanting free hand-outs and not being responsible is what is causing the nation to fall apart.
You also apparently don't know the point of the different genders. There's sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction. Most animals went the route of sexual reproduction due to the advantages this provides to the species over asexual reproduction. It has nothing to do with "specific roles" as you put it. So even without the "specific roles" that you keep trying to shoehorn people into, we would still need different genders for sexual reproduction (the closest thing out there in the animal kingdom of sexually reproducing animals w/o a gender are the animals who sometimes switch genders based on their environment. But they are still a certain gender even if they can change between the two). And your last real sentence is rather ironic. If a man was capable of breast feeding (aka he was lactating) then by all means he can breast feed if he were to choose to. Or if a woman is strong enough sure she can get out there and plow the fields. And that gets right back to my original point. If a person is capable of doing something then they should be allowed to do it if they want. But being "capable" should mean meeting a single standard that doesn't change regardless of your age, sex, or ethnicity. So if a man isn't lactating then obviously he shouldn't be allowed to breast feed. Or if a woman isn't strong enough to plow the fields then she has no business out there trying to do it outside of certain extenuating circumstances.
paramedic70002
Regular Member
People have no choice which gender they are born. Women have babies and are capable of feeding them, men don't and can't. This can't be changed. People need to deal with their circumstances. Science is overwhelmed with proof that women and men are generally equipped with different physical traits and psyches relative to their biological roles in society. In my perfect world women would be recognized as equal citizens without having to cross gender roles. Families and children would be much better, unemployment would be near zero and workers would make a salary sufficient to provide for their family's comfort, giving women the 'option' to stay at home and care for and nurture their families. What percentage of 'career women' would be happy to walk away from the rat race if they could do so, at least while they had children at home? My guess is, a lot.
Why don't you try laying off the logical fallacies? Your definition of "Real Men" is arbitrary and has no basis. I might as well say Real men don't call things feminist propaganda.
You need some serious education if you don't understand what commie feminist propaganda is, or who is behind it. Oh wait, the commies wrote your text books, run your universities, your govt., your media, your entertainment and everything else around you. No wonder you are so confused.
There are some situations, I think, in which a man would-physically be better suited- BUT.
Some of the best all-around cops-and troops, for that matter, I've ever seen have been women. And I've seen a few who were damned-good shots as well.
One incident I observed, some years back, still cracks me up: A female U.S. Marshall was observing some protesters at an event in Detriot. A federal judge had put an injunction in place, detailing some rules to the conduct of the protestors, due to some voilent behavior, earlier on.
One of the protestors had violated this injunction, and the female Marshall stepped up to arrest the guy. She was tiny. I do mean, TINY. Like, maybe 4' 5" and 60lbs with all her gear on. Confronting a 250lb + knucklehead.
As most of us figured he would, he took a swing at her when she approached to within striking distance.
Huge mistake. She took him down fast, and had him face-down on the pavement immediately, and was beginning to cuff him.
3 of his buddies thought it would be smart to intervene at this point.
She whipped out an ASP baton and commenced to a rapid beat-down that looked like something out of a movie lol.
In just over a minute, she had all 4 of these clowns face-down on the pavement and flex-cuffed.
Some of the best all-around cops-and troops, for that matter, I've ever seen have been women. And I've seen a few who were damned-good shots as well.
One incident I observed, some years back, still cracks me up: A female U.S. Marshall was observing some protesters at an event in Detriot. A federal judge had put an injunction in place, detailing some rules to the conduct of the protestors, due to some voilent behavior, earlier on.
One of the protestors had violated this injunction, and the female Marshall stepped up to arrest the guy. She was tiny. I do mean, TINY. Like, maybe 4' 5" and 60lbs with all her gear on. Confronting a 250lb + knucklehead.
As most of us figured he would, he took a swing at her when she approached to within striking distance.
Huge mistake. She took him down fast, and had him face-down on the pavement immediately, and was beginning to cuff him.
3 of his buddies thought it would be smart to intervene at this point.
She whipped out an ASP baton and commenced to a rapid beat-down that looked like something out of a movie lol.
In just over a minute, she had all 4 of these clowns face-down on the pavement and flex-cuffed.
Superlite27
Regular Member
I often recognize things others overlook. Do you recognize your own tendency to refer to women as items YOU determine locations for? In several of your posts, you refer to "putting" women. You also let us know you'd views on "allowing"....how did you put it...."your woman" to enter law enforcement.
Of course. Because they're too stupid to make self-determining decisions, right? They obviously are incapable of making decisions about their own fate and require men in order to "put" them places, "allow" them to do things, and do all the heavy lifting.
The language, and how it is used often speaks more about a person than the actual words they say. I treat my girlfriend as a PARTNER, and decisions are made MUTUALLY. It's a Clichet phrase, but that doesn't make it any less true: It takes more strength to trust than it does to control. I'm man enough to realize that my girlfriend is perfectly capable of making self determining decisions without the need for me to "put" her anywhere, or "allow" her to do things. Is "your woman" strong enough to make her own decisions, or are you too weak to trust anyone else with decisions about who gets "put" where?
I don't know. Maybe I've been brainwashed. However, people who have been brainwashed are often unable to RECOGNIZE telltale signs about their own world views. I'll leave it to others to determine which of us is more likely to be brainwashed. I'm strong enough to let others make that decision. How about you?
since9
Campaign Veteran
Well said, Superlite27. I like and respect women who're just as capable as anyone. I've never been thrilled with damsels in distress or princesses who can't get their hands dirty.
Last edited: