View Full Version : Women (and children) First

04-01-2003, 02:36 PM
Okay, so could some of you modern types explain something to me?

When the Hussein forces hide behind civilians to attack us, it's often referred to as "hiding behind women and children".

When the Hussein forces fire on civilians, it's often referred to as firing on "women and children".

When the busload of people was shot up trying to run the checkpoint yesterday, it was referred to as a vehicle full of "women and children".... even though the driver was male.

And yet, there was an article in today's paper, singing the praises of the 20% of the 709th (a unit of MPs) that are female. One of the females interviewed asserted that she liked it, not because she could serve her country, or help make Iraq a better place, but because she was doing what "the males" were doing. In other words, her motivation was penis-envy.

I can't understand you people's inconsistency. Are women equal? Then who gives any more of a **** if they are shot-up than if males are? Why are they singled out for consideration? What would be the reaction if, during the Korean War, a black soldier had said he liked the new integrated army because "I'm doing what the whites are doing?" Yeah, send me to a freezing hellhole with people shooting at me just so I can be considered "equal". (of course, blacks were already being sent to a freezing hellhole with people shooting at them, unlike females...) And by singling women out for praise like this, it's condescendingly saying, "Women are equal (but not really)." If they're equal, is it going to be surprising that they're participating (no one has commented on how well or poorly they do, or just how much the 80% are having to compensate for the 20% ...)

/rant on
While I'm on this diatribe, I have another question:
Am I the last heterosexual male on the planet?
On television, in the movies, they show these karate-chopping broads with bulging muscles and narrow hips, and the guys around me hoot and hollar as if they were sex-kittens. Meanwhile I sit there and think, "great, another guy with tits". It's as though y'all have driven a stake through the heart of femininity.

30 years ago, the feminazis would whine and gripe about how girls were being "brainwashed" into playing with dolls and being homemakers, while boys were being "brainwashed" into being soldiers (even though females and males would gravitate toward those forms of play). It appears to me nowadays that females are being "brainwashed" into being male, and males are being "brainwashed" into accepting that. Every "traditional" female role is denegrated as unimportant or degrading, while acting like a cheap prostitute is promoted as being ladylike (meanwhile, the literacy rate plummits, feral children abound, abortion on-demand is a habit, not a tragedy, divorce rate tops 50% with the infidelity rates above that...), and even the most unpleasant and disgusting aspects of the male role are promoted as highly desireable to females.
It likewise appears males are being brainwashed into thinking their own role is unimportant. Where the hell is your manhood? How do you define your manhood, when you accept that your difficult and unpleasant role in life is unimportant, fulfillable by the very creatures for whom you perform your difficult and unpleasant role? If a girl can do anything a boy can do... how do you define your manhood? If a female is judged on the same standards as males (violent, vulgar, sexually promiscuous, arrogant, in short, all those qualities males have been condemned for for 30+ years...) then how does she define her womanhood? And that's what's most aggrevating. That females have to do everything the way males do. Birds fly one way, bats another. They both still fly. But, oh no, if males server their country by slogging through the mud, then by gum females have to slog right alongside also. Forget that what's important is getting the job done; ego is all.

80% of the 709th are fools. The other 20% are insane fools.

Okay, /rant off. I feel better. Not much, but a little.

04-01-2003, 04:38 PM
Bigotry and misogyny are not attributes you should be proud of, nor should such attitudes and prejudice be expressed here.

04-01-2003, 08:03 PM
Hey, Beam, need a mirror, there? This from the guy who defends Peter Arnett and considers the U.S. a worse dictatorship than the Hussein regime.

I'm expressing neither bigotry nor misogyny. I've noticed a trend that's probably gone on longer than you've been alive, and I'm finally asking some people to explain it. I happen to respect women as women. And what I've observed is an encouragement and requirement for women to act like men and even look like men before they are respected. The bigotry and misogyny is among those who denegrate womanhood by insisting women act like men to earn respect.

I realise some people prefer to mindlessly label ideas they don't want to deal with as bigotry... label away, that doesn't make the questions go away. Or are you afraid that if people start thinking about this subject, they'll start to question the left-wing ideology that's been stuffed down their throats for the past 4 decades?

04-01-2003, 10:55 PM
Move to Japan Hiraghm! I tell you, it`s the last bastion of `traditional` values. Women are all trying to be as cute and sexy as possible, with hair down to there and skirts up to here; and the men are all rugged and smoke like chimneys. If it wasn`t all so Eastern here I`d swear I was in a Western!

Men and Women are not equal: they`re different. Patently. Socially and legally they should be treated as equal, but to believe that they are is to miss the point of gender.

This is not meant to come across as misogynistic. The sexes have strengths and weaknesses that balance and complement each other.

That`s it: I just don`t like the word `equal`. Swap it for `balanced` and I`m happy.

Vive la balance! :D

the literacy rate plummits
Tell me that was an on purpose, clever joke!


04-02-2003, 02:09 AM
women are women

men are men

when people want to stop bitching about women not getting mens jobs. Equality is not giving 50/50 women to men.

it is giving everyone a fair chance to get a job, women are not cut out to cut down trees ok


04-02-2003, 04:36 PM
This is funny.

Men are exspendable. Women and chindren need to be protected. This is what drives the media to use "Women and children" so much.

The sexes have roles in this world, and the roles change from culture to culture, but never really diverting from the main role. Even you Hiraghm, your line:

"Am I the last heterosexual male on the planet?".

This is just personal taste. The same as a person digs blonde hair, a burnette, T&A or no T&A. It doesn't make a person any less straight. And your stance on it doesn't make you any more heterosexual than the guy rubbing the oiled butt of a woman built like a tank.

People will be more outraged if a man walks into a schoolyard and slaughters 27 four year olds, than if the same man were to kill 27 40 year olds... I wonder if people will be more or less outraged if it were 27 92 year olds?

Yes, we all know that a bus full of people pretty much had some men on it. It's all meant to pull on the heart-strings of the public.

04-04-2003, 03:09 PM
i, for one, like long hair and short skirts. does that make me sexist?

04-04-2003, 06:34 PM
Lone, that makes you human and a normal male.
Nothing wrong with that!:p

04-04-2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by lone
i, for one, like long hair and short skirts. does that make me sexist?
No: it makes you a cross-dresser! :D


04-05-2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Rory_L
No: it makes you a cross-dresser! :D



04-05-2003, 09:09 AM
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was
asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were
just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States
has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril
to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land
we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those who did
not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

04-07-2003, 02:13 AM
that is true, but America has show a large bias with this war to secure the oil fields. This is to stop the Iraqies from burning them, they claim. but is it really so that the Americans can use the oil once they are thru with Saddam. and how long before another person like him comes allong, 5 maby 10 years. It wont last