Even more thoughts: How feminism and womans lib is destroying America

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Hee hee, gotcha.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000

Answers

You snake.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 31, 2000.

You pretend to be joking but that is what you really think isn't it you misogynistic chauvinist pig?

-- Helen Reddy (I am woman @ hear me. roar), May 31, 2000.

rofl Unc, got me.

Thought there might be some material here I could use to keep the little woman under control.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), May 31, 2000.


Unk,

When I 1st saw the post I thought to myself "Damn! he's sure pilferin' through the undie box now,look out cause here comes the soiled ones".

Yea,you got me on that one.

Cheers.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), June 01, 2000.


I am woman, hear me Roar...

Eat my shorts if you don't like my life, my rights, my intelligence, my money, my power.....

-- (Tinkerbell @nd Cap'n .Hook), June 01, 2000.



Can you believe that it was only back in 1973 that a lot of men didn't think women could work in electronics?

The first base I was assigned to, my fist boss, my first day told me: "You don't belong here, women don't belong here, you're not going to make it and I'm going to help you not make it".

He was, of course, wrong.



-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 01, 2000.


If we can send a man to the moon ....

why don't we send all of them? :o)

-- Debra (!!!!@!!!!.com), June 01, 2000.


Debra,

It would be easier and cheaper to send you and your feminist sisters!

-- Lurker2 (lurker2@lots.to.lurk.for), June 01, 2000.


"If we can send a man to the moon ....

why don't we send all of them? :o)"

Because you need our dicks, and there is no way to keep them alive without keeping the rest of our body attached to them.

-- (i know what @ girls. want), June 01, 2000.


What is a fist boss?

-- just wondering (curiousity@this.time), June 01, 2000.


He's the guy in charge of "fisting".

-- Mr. Kay (mrkay@sf.castro.st), June 01, 2000.

Tinkerbell,

"Eat my shorts if you don't like my life, my rights, my intelligence, my money, my power....."

Frankly my dear, we don't give a damn!

-- Hack (real@men.don't.eat.quiche), June 01, 2000.


"Eat my shorts if you don't like my life, my rights, my intelligence, my money, my power....."

Haa haa haaa! That's funny ladies. Just admit it, you don't have any money or power, our dicks control the world.

-- Burt Reynolds (sure.glad@i.have.one), June 01, 2000.


Ahhh ... see what you did now Unk ... you started a fight. LOL

-- Debra (!!!!@!!!!.com), June 01, 2000.

Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow: And dart not scornful glances from those eyes, To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor: It blots thy beauty, as frosts do bite the meads; Confounds thy fame, as whirlwinds shake fair buds; And in no sense is meet or amiable.

A woman moved is like a fountain troubled, Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty; And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty Will deign to sip, or touch one drop of it. Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee, And for thy maintenance commits his body To painful labour both by sea and land, To watch the night in storms, the day in cold, Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe; And craves no other tribute at thy hands But love, fair looks, and true obedience, --

Too little payment for so great a debt. Such duty as the subject owes the prince, Even such a woman woeth to her husband; And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour, and not obedient to his honest will, What is she but a foul contending rebel, And graceless traitor to her loving lord?

I am ashamed that women are so simple To offer war, where they should kneel for peace; Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway, When they are bound to serve, love, and obey.

Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth, Unapt to toil and trouble in the world, But that our soft conditions and our hearts Should well agree with our external parts?

Come, come, you froward and unable worms! My mind hath been as big as one of yours, My heart as great; my reson, haply, more, To bandy word for word and frown for frown; But now I see our lances are but straws; Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare, -- That seeming to be most, which we indeed least are.

Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot, And place your hands below your husband's foot: In token of which duty, if he please, My hand is ready, may it do him ease. -- Katharina, (The Taming of the Shrew) -- William Shakespeare

-- helen (ducking@the.recoil), June 01, 2000.



I sure hope it doesn't come down to fisting! Gross!

-- Ugh! Leave me outta this! (bleah@the.pain.the.pain), June 01, 2000.

Fisting, light bulbs, shot glasses, gerbils, you name it. The folks at SF General have seen it all!

-- Mr. Kay (mrkay@sf.castro.st), June 01, 2000.

Men! Be not PW'ed. Leave the toilet seat UP!

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 01, 2000.

With a well stocked sperm bank guess who is expendable?

If you guessed deedah and company you go to the head of the class.

-- afriendoffemales (x@q.edu), June 01, 2000.


afriend,

You've got the wrong idea. The barbs are directed at feminists, not normal females. Relax. Most men and women appreciate the opposite sex and get along well their mates of same. It's just the ones with a chip on their shoulder that we dislike. My wife is more liberated and equal than any feminist, but you'll never hear her complaining about women's rights or dissing men. Those who can do, those who can't or feel inferior complain or verbally assert their so called superiority. Trying to disguise it with humor doesn't fool those of us who know.

-- A Man (aman@likes.real.women), June 01, 2000.


Show me a feminist and I'll show you a fat,ugly,angry woman who can't get a man.

-- penis envy (We@ll.know it's true), June 01, 2000.

afriendof:

With genetic engineering capabilities, women don't even need the sperm banks. We can mix the best of the best from the female populace and then modify the XX to XY, producing a male [if needed] from the female gene pool.

If one were to accept the responses to this thread as a cross-section of the gene pool available for sperm banks, I would think the above a preferred alternative.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.


Gee, Mr. A Man, it sure was nice of those early women to do all the shit work of getting women the right to vote, the right to birth control, the right to own their own property, the right to attend med school, and fighting for women to have access to everything men have always had access to. I hope your "more liberated and equal than any feminist" wife appreciates what those who came before her did, so that she just sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labors. Why should she complain?

penis envy, I'm a feminist, and I'm not fat, nor ugly, nor angry, and I've never had a problem getting a man at any time during my life. Not that "getting a man" was a goal I pursued relentlessly.

Anita, considering some of the responses, I would certainly agree with you on the sperm banks. As Ashley Montagu, said, "It is as if in the evolution of sex a particle one day broke away from an X-chromosome, and thereafter in relation to X-chromosomes could produce only an *incomplete female*--the creature we now call the male! It is this original chromosomal deficiency that all the various troubles to which the male falls heir can be traced." Author of The Natural Superiority of Women. BTW, Ashley is male. (asterisks mine)

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 01, 2000.


Gilda, you got it all wrong baby. Ask any phsyiologist or biological scientist. The woman is an underveloped version of the man. If the clitoris had fully developed it would have become a penis, and the lips would become the nuts. Something went wrong and you guys came out abnormally underveloped, brains too. Our dicks prove that we are the fittest of the species, and that's why we dominate and rule the world. Quit bitching and spread those legs, you'll enjoy life much more. :-)

-- Burt Reynolds (try.it@you'll.like.it), June 01, 2000.

I'm a feminist when examples of gross injustice to women are plain. For example, when speaking or writing of the Vatican or the Taliban, I'm a feminist. In most instances of real life, I'm merely a humanist. I have been erronenously labeled a "feminist" by usually older, out-of-touch men because I'm smart, articulate, and independent. If a woman happens to be physically attractive and intelligent, some men especially will accuse her as having a "chip on her shoulder." So in fact, it is not physically "ugly" women who are feminists, but men who wield the term "feminist" as a kind of puny, cheap assault tool who are ugly.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

Burt Reynolds,

You a shining example of male mental impotence. Recent studies have proven that the clitoris is in fact a strong large muscle that extends well into the pelvis. Further, men are not exactly well known for their ability to achieve multiple orgasm. Girls have outscored boys in recent academic tests. Moreover, if women are the undeveloped gender, why do men bear so much more facial and body hair, a remnant of the ape world?

Chatter on, little chimp.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.


Dear Unc,

Why restrict yourself to the USA on this topic? After all women are taking over the world !

-- Chris (griffen@globalnet.co.uk), June 01, 2000.


Burt,

Even if you could prove your fantastic claim that your sex is somehow superior overall, you've inadvertently just demonstrated that there's an exception to every rule.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.


Burt Reynold's spelling is "abnormally underveloped."

-- Student (in@class.com), June 01, 2000.

When a society is fortunate to exist during one of the occasional periods of peace that occasionally pop up during humanity's long history of almost continual warfare, then they can afford such luxuries as feminism. However, our little blip is about to come to an unpleasant end as soon as the Chinese are ready to move on us in earnest, aided by our modern technology stolen and given to them by the traitorous Clinton administration. In times of war, it is the men who must rise up and bear the brunt of fighting the enemy. Desert Storm was a dress rehersal, and somewhat of a cake walk. An amazing number of female soldiers suddenly became pregnant and had to be shipped home. We'll see about women's responsibilities as well as their rights when the shooting really starts in earnest and Americans start dying in significiant numbers. Remember, Clinton won the first time with the support of both men and women. The second time around, men deserted him in droves after seeing his treachery and duplicity. The women, however, were still seduced by his charisma and put him back in office to continue doing irreparable damage and harm to this country. Enjoy it while you can, feminists. The bitter harvest of your support for the great traitor Clinton and the feminization of young American males is about to come and haunt us all.

-- Hack (no@feminists.on.battlefields), June 01, 2000.

Student,

Show me a single word that I misspelled. Just goes to show you how dumb the weaker sex is, they run their mouths before engaging the brain.

-- Burt (you@want.me.baby), June 01, 2000.


Unc,

It looks like you really did GOTCHA a tiger by the tail!

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), June 01, 2000.


Since this thread has evolved into a comedy, I'll go for another $0.02.

"Our dicks prove that we are the fittest of the species, and that's why we dominate and rule the world."

Had the penis had anything to do with fittest of the species, it would have been better placed WITHIN the body, [outside of harm's way], to reveal itself externally only when required. Males of many other mammal species have this protective design function. Unfortunately, the internal temperature of the human male would cook the sperm, so both the penis and the testes are external. Personally, I consider this a design flaw.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.


Hack,

Do not sully a good man's name, ya prick.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.


Chris,

With all due respect to you, women are only taking over the Western world. In most of the rest of the world, their status is considerably lower and their treatment worse than it ever was in America.

Capable women should be and are in leadership posts along with men. I'd take a Margaret Thatcher over a Bill Clinton or a Tony Blair any day of the week. For that matter, many of us would rather have had Barbara Bush than George Senior! God spare us Hillary Clinton, the scorpion.

Feminists should redirect their energies toward improving the lot of the majority of women in the world who are mistreated and dominated by old-fashioned male supremicist societies, instead of tearing down what's left of this once great country.

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), June 01, 2000.


I have to agree with Burt baby. Just check out my show "Baywatch Hawaii" and you'll be able to see what most men already know... women are only good for one thing. Myself, I prefer the bodacious blonde bimbos with huge bazoombas! :-)

-- David Hasselhoff (beach bunnies @ are. best), June 01, 2000.

For Burt--

"Show me a single word that I misspelled."

First: "The woman is an underveloped version of the man." Second: "You guys came out abnormally underveloped, brains too." (Hee hee...)

Look up "underveloped" in the dictionary, Burt. Let me know when you find it.

Just goes to show you how dumb Burt Reyonds is, and how he runs his mouth before engaging his brain.

-- Student (in@class.com), June 01, 2000.


Unc,

You started this free-for-all, how about refereeing it?

-- Lurker2 (good@reason.to.lurk), June 01, 2000.


The real "Hack "

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

Burt,

Why are you being demeaning and antagonistic toward all women? My only beef is with modern feminists, the ones who always seem to have a chip on their shoulder. The earlier ones served a positive purpose in gaining equal rights for women. It's only the modern ones that want it all and don't care if they destroy our society in the process. Men and women have different strengths and weakenesses. One sex is not superior to the other except in specific circumstances. We need each other. Life would be dull without La Difference.

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), June 01, 2000.


Student, you sure got a bug up your butt. Why don't you get laid once in a while and mellow out baby. If you are blonde, I have just the cure for what ails you. :)

-- David Hasselhoff (beach@boy.stud), June 01, 2000.

Going for $0.06 here:

David: If student turns out to be a blonde male, does the same offer apply?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.


Uncle,

Sorry about that. Wasn't thinking. Don't want to be disrespectful to THAT Hack! Next time I'll sign me Hacker. By the way, I'm not a prick. Just concerned about our country's future.

-- Hacker (no@feminists.in.submarines), June 01, 2000.


Guys, guys, guys - Remember rule #1!...

"Arguing with a woman is like eating soup with a fork!"

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.


Ladies, you've convinced me! I'm going for the sex change operation next week. Any suggestions on what to do with the huge amputation?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 01, 2000.

CD,

Why not confront the stupidity of these creeps and bullies instead of humoring them? I have many fascinating discussions with intelligent men, and when we disagree, they don't describe the conversation as "eating soup with a fork." Besides, could you really describe Burt's and David's boorish insults as "arguments"?

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.


"Any suggestions on what to do with the huge amputation?"

Have it stuffed, it will come in handy on those lonely nights.

-- slutty mama (me@so.horny), June 01, 2000.


Burt, try raising kids on your own, a#$hole. Then tell me who the weaker sex is.

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), June 01, 2000.

Celia- 'Twas merely said with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I thought this a rather comical thread and, since Anita was already up to .06 cents, I thought I'd through in my 2.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

The feminine movement is direct responsible for the escalation of crime in the US.

Women, stay home and take care of your children!!!

Do not let that crack addict and others - that don't know anything about kids- who run todays daycares make kriminals out of YOUR kid's.

Daycare and all those "positive Gvmt studies" is only a way to get you out there to work and to pay even more taxes. Its the Gvmt's way of taking control over YOUR live.

Curb your greed. You don't have to have everything Jones'es have.

Instead letting yourself being abused by TPTB stand up, and give America back what it needs, ..... familie values, and functionality.

-- Justin Me (justme@justme.not), June 01, 2000.


There are two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works.

....and for the women....Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco. ....and ....don't squat with your spurs on.

and another for the men....don't pee on an electric fence.

-- Mark Twain (#@*.edu), June 01, 2000.


Are any of the posters on this thread LadyLogic?

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), June 01, 2000.

Justn, and other like minded men, instead of sowing your seeds in many gardens, keep it in your pants, stay with one woman and help her take care of the children that YOU created. I can't believe you're blaming the woes of America on women. If men didn't leave their families to follow the first bodacious blonde the happened by, then women would be able to stay home with their children. grrrr don't EVEN get me going! >=0|

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), June 01, 2000.

Up to $.08 on this one:

Mr. Twain: Did I ever relate the story about the homeless man that made the mistake of urinating on the third rail at one of Chicago's underground subway stations? They put up a warning sign at that station afterwards.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.


Observer said, "Feminists should redirect their energies toward improving the lot of the majority of women in the world who are mistreated and dominated by old-fashioned male supremicist societies, instead of tearing down what's left of this once great country."

Um, may I point out to you that in the "good ol' days" this "once great country" was dominated by old-fashioned male supremacists?

The feminists of last century, the Sufragettes, were most likely hated more than today's "feminists", who are not as activists, but simply more assertive in exercising their human rights, gained through the Sufragettes et al.

The comment "this once great country of ours" is, shall I say, in the eye of the observer ;-)

-- (y@x.x), June 01, 2000.


CD,

Actually, I've always enjoyed your humor, and I know you didn't mean it entirely that way. ;^}

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.


Hacker,

All is forgiven.

I agree with many of your points BTW, re: women in the military.

And to the rest of you, it was a joke for crying out loud.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.


Unk, au contraire, you should be commended for getting heated debates going with your threads. It's obvious to us women you were poking at our ribs with a sting gun on with that subject title, but the debate is valid nontheless.

The barbarian trolls should not be taken anymore seriously on this subject than any other, ladies. Certainly not worth getting our "panties in a twist" by their comments ;-)

But Unk and some others, well, if I get my panties in a twist over your comments, take it as a compliment ;-)

-- (y@x.x), June 01, 2000.


Y,

"The comment "this once great country of ours" is, shall I say, in the eye of the observer ;-)"

True, but you're missing my point. It wasn't great because women were relegated to second place status. It was great because of the ideals and morals of the people who lived in those times, and due to the family structure where the women stayed home and raised the children properly until they were old enough to leave home. Today, although women have attained equal status (and is some cases more than equal) we are also in the throes of disintegration of our society, with few meaningful ideals and vague, situation-dependent morals. The HUNS are gathering over the hill and our weakened society had better watch out or we're about to get a taste of what the Romans got.

The problem is that we don't have any sort of balance. Where before we were a male-dominated society, today men have to tiptoe around or get accused of sexual harrassment and our boys are growing up less suited to deal with an unfriendly world. Even private men's clubs are now being forced by the government to admit women. Why should a private men's organization have to admit women? I don't know any men who want to join the women's club, or a women only health spa.

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), June 01, 2000.


Anita

I just got an e-mail re: a runnerup in this years Darwin awards.....a man ran two power cords from his house to the river out back to electrocute some fish. It worked ... the fish were floating on top of the water ... so he waded in .... and died.

Thought for June first Never kick a cow chip on a hot day!

-- tc aka mark&afriend (tc@webtv.net), June 01, 2000.


"Enjoy it while you can, feminists. The bitter harvest of your support for the great traitor Clinton and the feminization of young American males is about to come and haunt us all."

Hack, I found your post amusing on many levels. However, note that it is men who have begun and made wars, men who have sent other men to die in wars, and men who will now send women to die in wars as well (unless we someday elect a female commander-in-chief).

In light of history, your blaming women for any future military holocaust strikes me as demonstrably false, and cowardly.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.


Observer, thanks for clarifying your point of view.

To that then I'd respond that society is in the midst of major change over a relatively short period of time, compared to the millenias of male dominated societies. As with any such major upheaveal, it takes time for people to adjust.

Personally, in the grand scheme of things, I don't see the changes are that upsetting to society, considering what a huge change it is. The younger generations, both male and females, are adjusting a lot better than the Boomers and pre-boomer generations, IMO. The earth belongs to them now. Us older folks are just holding grudges from the past ;-) (and some are still living IN the past.)

I'm optimistic that the newer generations will iron out the ill effects on our society some perceive as steming from the feminist movements. The dust is still settling.

-- (y@x.x), June 01, 2000.


('preciate that, Celia. Thanks.)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

(No need to thank me CD... I was in the wrong. Thanks!)

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

When men start taking as much responsibility for raising children, after a couple splits, as women do, then I'll be impressed. When men become as interested in their children as they are in sports and war, I'll really be impressed.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 01, 2000.

Unk, I know this one's gonna be lost in the shuffle, but you got me too with this. Good one!

To everyone who is actually arguing with the likes of "Burt Reynolds" and "David Hasselhoff": Doesn't their choice of "handles" clearly indicate the mentality you're dealing with? Why waste your "cyber-breath" on them? They're probably only trying to "push the buttons" anyway. Don't let them. (And remember, school's out in some parts.....)

But take solace in knowing that if they do in fact subscribe to the beliefs on which they post, they are part of a rapidly shrinking minority (not sure if that pun was intended or not). They have to hold on to something; if it's their shrinking manhood (oops -- another pun), let them. It's small consolation (hey, I can't help it) and one I'll gladly let them have.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 01, 2000.


When men become as interested in their children as they are in sports and war, I'll really be impressed.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 01, 2000.

Woohoo Gilda! You rock, sistah! =o)

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), June 01, 2000.


I don't know any men who want to join the women's club, or a women only health spa.

Of course not. Comparatively, (and traditionally) women don't hold as much power as men. Why would an aspiring person spend time with people who can't further their career?

Women want into male clubs specifically for that reason.

We want to network with TPTB also. We want -- need -- access to the same thought processes that sucessful people seem to posess.

Do you honestly want to ban us from places that provide that opportunity?

-- Carol (Carol__Carter@net.care), June 01, 2000.


Carol,

I see your point, but don't believe that the government has the right to dictate who socializes with whom, nor should it have the right to control private organizations. I'll give you an example. I'm a member of the Elk's club. The Elk's specifically prohibit discussions of a business or political nature at any gathering or in any club facilitiy. It is a men's fraternal organization, and has been for many years. But now the government has somehow coerced the national organization into forcing all the local clubs to admit women. None of the members of my local lodge want this, but it was shoved down our throats. As a result, membership is slowly dwindling, and we have had to spend a lot of money making the athletic facilities co-ed. This is a private group that doesn't get any government money. I predict that the end result will be a continual erosion of the membership until the organization is no longer viable. Very sad. There are times that men wish to act like men and be with their male friends, without women being present. Why is this so hard for women to take?

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), June 01, 2000.


"When men start taking as much responsibility for raising children, after a couple splits, as women do, then I'll be impressed. When men become as interested in their children as they are in sports and war, I'll really be impressed."

Busting your balls working 40-60 hours a week under highly stressful conditions is not taking responsibility? Hah! Tell you what, you get off your fat ass and bring home the 60-80k that is needed to raise a family, and I'll be happy to play Mr. Mom, wiping the kids noses and watching soap operas.

-- Mr. Husband (ungrateful@bitches.suck), June 01, 2000.


Men-tal Anxiety. . . Men-opause. . . Men-tal Breakdown. . . Ever noticed that all problems start with MEN?

-- Debra (ohmy@didIsaythat?.com), June 01, 2000.

Observer,

I see your point also. Thank you for your kind response. I appreciate the fact that you're not attacking me, or any of the other women on the board (or women in general).

I fully understand there are times we all want to spend time with our own gender.

However, when we are at our respective clubs, we tend to "let our hair down" and form better, more long-lasting relationships. Where else can I meet and network with power brokers who are relaxing and enjoying themselves while recreating? (As in recreation, golf, tennis, etc. -- and not in a bar.)

I'd really like to know the answer to this if you have one.

-- Carol Carter (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 01, 2000.


wo-rthless

wo-rst

wo-rn

wo-rry

wo-rk

wo-es

Ever notice these miserable things that start with wo-men?

-- (what@a.drag), June 01, 2000.


Sheeesh, I was just having a little fun with you ladies and you started a war! Lighten up, it's all in fun! Party down with the Burt-man, I'll make you fall in love with men again. ;-)

-- Burt Reynolds (i.have.just@what.you.need), June 01, 2000.

Well I HOPE this was all in fun; some of youse are seeming pretty testy!

Dear Anita and Gilda (two of my very favorite posters on this forum). Please tell me you're not serious. If you are, shame on you for buying into these ridiculous jox.

By the way, I will admit that I have a lot more interest in my children than sports (my interest in "sports", as opposed to actually doing things like hiking, biking, river running, etc., is very close to zero. What a waste of time). My interest in war is only an interest to prevent having more of them.

So, do you love me? :)

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), June 01, 2000.


Assuming women are not willing to fight in a war is silly. Women will kill to protect their young. Women will prevent war to protect their young. Women are not as easily prone to physical violence in defence of their ego. The need for the physically strong is being replaced by the need for mental ability. Unfortunatly the centuries of the "survival of the fittest" has allowed the most heavily physically strong and agressive to dominate. Brain power was not exactly needed.

When societies developed to the point that brain-power overtook strength as a needed atribute then females and the "weaker" males have taken over. Strength is still needed, but the agresive traits have to now be weeded out.

It is sad to see men who feel that being a male somehow gives them superiority over "weaker" males and women, they are throwbacks to a time which will never exist again.

Men are smarter in todays society, women are too.

Even Baywatch is an example of the lack of brainpower in some men, they are being controlled by people with brains that know how to control and influence them. People who have absolutly no respect for them and are in fact belittleing males by showing them what they think men are all about, showing them that they think men do not have the ability to think and reason and know that superficiality is all that matters. Until real men stand up and say-tickle my intellegence as well as my libedo-they will continue to be treated as if they are brainless bodies.

Men are people with brains as well as bodies too.

I hate media that puts men down the same way they used to put women down. Men are real people too, and the more aggressive and brain-dead will continue to be weeded out. Women ae choosing to procreate with men with minds and to not breed with men with just physically strong bodies and agressive attitudes.

I think "Burt Reynolds" and "David Hasselhoff" are people who are just trying to get a reaction, because if they believe what they say they are a dying breed who you can only feel sorry for.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 02, 2000.


Up to a dime on this one.

Jumpoff: "Dear Anita and Gilda (two of my very favorite posters on this forum). Please tell me you're not serious. If you are, shame on you for buying into these ridiculous jox."

Serious about WHAT? Genetic engineering possibilities are simply fact. I AM serious about the design flaw in the male anatomy. I always felt they got a raw deal from that one. Response to David: Serious. He assumed the student was female. Homeless man story = true. Did I think this thread a serious one? No.

I would have enjoyed a serious discussion on women staying home versus working outside the home, and the influence the women's movement had on society, but I didn't think this the thread for that. I'll check out Lars' homeschooling thread and see if that might be a better place. If not, I'll introduce another thread on the topic.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.


Women do NOT belong in the front lines of military conflict. That is a place for us manly strapping he-men only. Sure women can serve in the military doing things like getting coffee and stuff, but not doing the fighting in the trenches.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

I would add that women can be highly competent as electronics tecnicians, missile battery operators, doctors, nurses, and other important functions not at the front lines. Cherri is an obvious example. But ladies, let us guys do the actual fighting. Please stay off of ships and behind the front lines where you can REALLY help us a lot!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.

Ok, Unk...we can't fight in the trenches, but it'd be jest fine with you if we deliver coffee (and probably rolls too) to y'all in the trenches? I mean, as long as we quickly run up and back, ducking, bobbing and weaving. And right about now you're probably wondering if the Army could get french maid outfits in camouflage...right? :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

Unk,

Who would be better in the front lines - the 5'5", 150 pound male or the 6', 200 pound female?

-- Debra (wondering@here.com), June 02, 2000.


Good point, Debra. Individuals selected for combat duties should be chosen for their abilities, without regard to their gender.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

OK, mebbe huge manly gorilla dykes with clits as big as my thumb could serve up front too.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

I'm shocked. Does your wife let you talk like that?

-- Debra (??@??.com), June 02, 2000.

Somebody let me know if this thread has changed from a joke thread, 'cause if it has, Deeda's in some deep shit.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Showing your true colors, Uncle D?

-- As for me (I'm@disgusted.com), June 02, 2000.

Lol Unk! I agree, send them dykes to the front line!

-- David Hasselhoff (protect.the@beach.bunnies), June 02, 2000.

Uncle Deedah,

How very nice of you to acknowledge my abilities.

Just a little problem here though, electronice was just one of many skills I was required to have and perform.

I can give pilots check rides, I gave GCA's, I Taught them how to fight air-to-air combat, air to ground combat, how to use heat missles and radar missles and drop nuclear bombs, to teach them, I first had to know how to do those things my self. As I posted early on in my time at TB2000, I used to practice dropping nuclear bombs on Cuba, although no one acknowledged the fact that I made the statement. I used to practice dropping them on Lake Okachobe (sp) too, whatever showed up on the radar screen :o). After practicing one day I sat and said to my self, If that had been real I would have killed a lot of babies, so I sat there in the cockpit of the F-4 and worked out the emotional-intellectual conflict that created. I realised that if it came to a point where it was necessary to drop a bomb like that, that it would only be due to the necessity of protecting our children from death from the other country. Before anyone goes rabid and whines about that statement, realise that no nuclear bomb has been dropped in war since it "was necessary to do so" in Japan bringing WWII to an end.

Learn real history and stop being co-orced by those who do not know what they are talking about when they lament those two bombs being dropped, you were not around at the time and the American governments post war involvement in Japan did a lot to cover-up the atrocities carried out by the Japanese during WWII.

My Father was on the Bataan death march and spent 3 1/2 years in a Japanese POW camp being subjected to the horror their culture condoned. The prisoners of the Japanese were subjected to treatment that was as bad, if not worse, than the German gave in their POW camps. The reason it was never put in our history books is that we accupied Japan after the war and tried to turn it into a poor relitive of the USA, acepted as part of the family as long as it did all of the grunt work.

Back to women in combat, to this day if it were necessary, I would and could fight in combat to protect this country. A lot of women would, the same as a lot of men would if it came down to the necessity of doing so. A lot of women would choose not to, a lot of men would also, but just like in the "war against Y2K failures" those who would and could are the ones who will do what is necessary. And they usually are not the ones you hear talking about it, it is the competence of those who are able that allows them to do their job well without needing outward confirmation of their abilities. It is usually those who depend on others recognition in their abilities that are not adiquate in those abilities.

I do not know why it is so difficult for some people to understand that women would and can fight, when the necessity for fighting exists. Yes there are those who "wimp out" by becoming pregnant on purpose, if there were such an easy way for men to do the same, a lot would take it. The point being is that you do not want those kind of people in combat. As it stand now it is not very necessary for one on one physical combat anymore. We are fighting wars with intellegent methods and it takes intellegent people to do so.

I'm sorry so many (all) missed my sense of humor in my post above. I guess stating the obvious in with a dead-pan face doesn't work on line so well....

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 02, 2000.


Gawd, Cheri has to give us a boring rundown of her entire life.

That figures because she has no current life.

ZZzzzzZzzZZzzzzz

-- (snooze @button . clang!), June 02, 2000.


Ladies you know I'm just kiddin ya.

I have no problem with female fighter jocks. If they can come to terms with what would happen to them if captured after hitting the silk, and are qualified to do the job, I say let them. As to the front line grunt scenario, that is the one place that I believe should be left to the men, even if a gal could handle it physically I think that overall moral and discipline would be best served by all male units.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.


Cherri,

I think it was me rather than Unc that referenced you and your abilities (i.e. "the culprit"). Please forgive me, I knew that you were sharp but had no idea about the depth of your knowlege and experience. I don't think that most of us question the ability of ladies like yourself to fight and "do the job". What I am concerned about is having women on the front lines and in the trenches and out on sea duty with us guys. Most of us would rather have you in supporting roles. We need you there very badly. It also complicates things in the field, underwater, etc. when we have to deal with co-ed facilities. War is not a game and one side always loses. We don't want it to be us! I have mixed feelings about women as pilots, but guess I would support this assuming they truly understand and accept what's going to happen to them if captured. But in the trenches, it's better to leave it a man's world. BTW were you in the AF or Navy?

Unc,

I use to live in San Francisco and believe me you could probably recruit at least a batallion of bad-ass Dykes up there! I'm 6 foot 200 lbs and I've seen bull dykes that I'd be afraid to tangle with!!!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.


Gee Unk, you're so macho and brave. I bet the ladies drool all over you!

-- David Hasselhoff (what@snow.job), June 02, 2000.

Cherri- you mean the part about Baywatch? It was a point well taken - I thought it was funny, AND astute.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 02, 2000.

Cherri, I enjoyed the Baywatch post very much. Like Debra, I thought it was astute, but I saw it mainly that way -- i.e., as consisting of ironic observations that were very interesting and contained a lot of truth. It was definitely amusing, and gave me a big smile, but I didn't see humor as the main intent. Maybe I missed the point, though?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

This is getting funnier as I observe. Now both Unk and Flash are saying that women aren't desirable in combat UNLESS they're fully aware of what can happen to them if captured? [or are you really saying that YOUR concentration isn't so good as to ignore a female participant]?

Men worry about females being raped and tortured in war scenarios. Might I remind you that YOU are the ones with the external genitals that could easily be cut off? [It's a DESIGN flaw...no doubt about it.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.


Anita,

Unc and I are both saying that we don't want women on the front lines and in the trenches with us. Your interpretation is not correct.

There is some truth to your supposition that having women in close proximity might have the effect of diluting our concentration on what the enemy is up to.

"Men worry about females being raped and tortured in war scenarios. Might I remind you that YOU are the ones with the external genitals that could easily be cut off? [It's a DESIGN flaw...no doubt about it.]"

It's one thing to philosophize about such things, and quite another to actually put oneself in circumstances that might really result in capture and mistreatment. Men don't enjoy going to war. Do women? It's not a game.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.


Carol,

Sorry to take so long in replying.

I'd say that some of the more business oriented clubs such as Toastmasters, Kiwanis, as well as professional organizations in one's field (such as the Project Management Institute) would be fertile ground for meeting power brokers. Also there are many private tennis, golf, and other sports clubs that allow women members. There are also political organizations, social-action groups, charitable groups, etc. that include power brokers and good business contacts among their membership. You can even meet interesting and influential people in night classes and on airplanes.

I remember once meeting an influential executive at General Atomic in San Diego on an airplane, years ago. We were sitting in opposite aisle seats on a cross-counrty flight and he was studying an interesting looking document. At an appropriate moment I commented "that looks really interesting", and we ended up talking about nuclear stuff for the rest of the flight. He said to give him a call after we got back and he would suggest some persons in the company for me to make sales calls upon.

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), June 02, 2000.


Hey y'all, check out some relly cool pics here of combat-ready women in the Israeli army. I don't know how to hotlink, but the URL is

http://www.israel-inside.com/women.htm

Guys, you can probably blow these up to poster-size; I bet you'll find them much more satisfying than Pamela Anderson, et. al.:)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.


Ok so this one is soooo lonnnngggg (uh-huh uncle dee :-) that I confess I didnt read all of it. Short attentions span, but WHAT caught my eye was the one who said women need dick.

Um, excuse me, last time I checked vibrators were about $10.00 and a good looonnnngggg oneeeee at that.

PS, it doesnt come 'attached', stays put till you need it, and doesnt talk back, but you do still have to clean up after it. LOL.

BTW, I'll take the 'heat' for my post. (i was gonna cheat and go annonymous) but hell i always get busted anyway!!!

sumer

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 02, 2000.


Flash:

I have absolutely NO desire to go into combat. I UNDERSTAND that it is not a game. HOWEVER, there are OTHER females [unlike myself] that would relish the chance, and THEY know it's not a game. You and Unk are limiting the possibilities to those who have external reproductive organs. WHY? These females are NOT the females you have back home that you feel you are protecting. These females are females that both feel that their presence will be helpful, and feel that they'll do the job as well as men. If they distract you, I believe that's YOUR problem. If you're concerned about their welfare over the welfare of another male in a combat role, I believe that's YOUR problem as well.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.


If they distract you, I believe that's YOUR problem. If you're concerned about their welfare over the welfare of another male in a combat role, I believe that's YOUR problem as well.

War is not a game. You do not win first prize because you were politically correct.

I said women could serve in air war roles because that role does not require the same physical demands of front line, in the trenches, eye to eye combat. I think that women can serve and serve well in many roles, but until the day comes when women are being drafted into the NFL as first round draft picks saying that women can endure the same physical demands that a man can is pure horseshit.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.


Anita, that was very well put. You emphasized the individual over the group, and that's a crucial point.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

Unk, the truth is that while many women may not be able to endure the same physical demands as men, some women can endure as much or more. That's why the focus should be on the individual; we're all different.

As far as distractions...well, maybe a little additional training for the men would be in order, to get y'all used to the idea.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.


This individual will keep the home fires burning, thanks for the option...

-- helen (b@t.s), June 02, 2000.

Jeez Cherri, the only thing worse than a dyke tennis player is a dyke that rambles on about war stories. Sounds like your experience in the military messed your head up pretty good.

-- Mel Gibson (i.like@feminine.broads), June 02, 2000.

Eve,

Thanks for the pics. There are definitely some cuties there, and I'd certainly rather know them than Pamela Anderson!

One thing we need to keep in mind. These ladies are defending their homeland, with not much buffer area. They are likely not in expeditionary units.

Kind of makes one want to consider joining up, tho. If they's just let us pair up with them in the barracks or BOQ, it would be a great recruiting incentive!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.


Anita,

I think you are still missing my point. The purpose of having a military force is to defend the country and prevail in war. The issue is not about women's rights, but rather what makes our military the most effective fighting machine. I maintain that having women in front line roles is deterimental to the overall effectiveness of the combat unit. Your belief that it's men's problem if they are distracted by the presence of women runs counter to the purpose of fielding the most effective combat units. In the case of the Israelis, the women are defending their homeland. This is a lot different that fielding units to fight outside of our boarders. The military has never been an "individual rights" organization. Quite the contrary, individual rights have always been subordinated to the collective good. We should do what facilitates the most effective combat units, not what a bunch of of liberal crybabies want. If you follow the real military literature at all, you will find that all this "women's rights" stuff has severely demoralized our fighting forces and compromised their qualitative edge. Klintoon has done an unimaginable amount of damage to our military readiness, and we never hear a word about it in the managed press. The Chinese or Russians are not going to send women against us. They'll use all men, as has been the case throughout recorded history. There's a good reason for that. It works best. If you are a small country with a limited number of males and small buffer zones, then yes, allow all available persons to serve.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.


Hi Flash,

Glad you liked the pics.

You wrote, "I maintain that having women in front line roles is deterimental to the overall effectiveness of the combat unit." You know, if this were found to be true, I'd have to agree with you; but I'm not aware of any studies that show this. Yes, some men could get distracted, but couldn't some training on anticipating problems of this nature, along with focusing and concentration techniques help with this?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.


Eve,

I agree that everyone who wants to serve, and is *able* to, should be able to. But I don't think the Services should have to double their costs to be able to do so. Put everyone in the same barracks and latrines, shave everyone's head, make everyone go through the same basic training, and the let best people fight.

"Separate but equal" hasn't worked either.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.


eve,

What you need to do is talk to guys what have recently left the military. They know that they cannot speak the truth while serving, but once they are out the overwhelming majority that I have spoken with feel the same way as Flash and I do.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.


Eve, I tend to agree with the male consensus on this.

Is it age discrimination to recruit young men for fighting on the front lines? No, it's economics - you get the most fight per body unit for the least amount of training.

Likewise, It takes a LOT of training to bring a woman up to the upper body strength that a young man has naturally, though it can be done.

Where body strength is not a big issue, and where instead it's brains and physical endurance rather than strength that are important, then I'm all for women serving.

It often makes me wonder why there evolved to be SUCH disparity between women and men as to upper body strength. Another design flaw - must be. :-) And one that we don't have to live with, if we don't want to. It's just that I don't think the front lines are the place to try and prove it. Can you see it now? If we experimented with women on the front lines and the war were lost, how much more doubts there would be .... how would we know if this wasn't just a tragic and expensive, needless waste of life? We don't know that about war ANYWAY!

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 02, 2000.


Thank you very much, Observer. You made some very good points, and I appreciate your input. In particular, I appreciated your story about the executive on the plane. Telling people something they have is interesting is a marvelous way to start a conversation! Thanks for the suggestion! I promise I'll try your tactic instead of beating down the door of a men's clubhouse tomorrow :o)

-- Carol Carter (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 02, 2000.

I agree with Frank on this military thing. I also see this happening within the next generation or two. Like everything else, once the generation with the old-fashioned ideas dies off, the next generation will move society forward. As Cherri mentioned, there was a time when men felt threatened by women in ANY role typically occupied by men. Society has moved along to the point now where folks say, "Well, it's okay IF...".

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Re: Women in the military

I can certainly understand why men wouldn't want women with them during the heat of combat. From what I've been told, some men (emphasis on "some") become animalistic when faced with mortal danger. (I'm not trying to be judgmental, I'm sure I would too. I believe desperate times call for desperate measures, and when you have people shooting at you, *most* people would become desperate.) Men probably don't want women to see them acting like that. (How many men would want their wife or daughter [or any female for that matter] to know they stuck a knife in the enemy and bit his/her nose off out of sheer anger? How many would be comfortable knowing a female would see them cry when they're so scared they soiled their pants? What if they ran?) I wouldn't want any men around to see how I would react in a moment of terror either.

Ultimately, I think any woman who wants to go into combat should be allowed to, but it should be with other women. Why can't we have all- female combat units? Why can't we have all-female basic training? Don't we already? Also, why can't we just *ask* people if they want to be in an integrated unit or not? Since flash and Deedah know they can't handle it, men like them can opt not to be in an integrated unit. People like Frank obviously have no problem with it, so why exclude participation when there are people like him who don't care?

I think if people were a little more accomodating, instead of rigid like flash and Deedah, there would be less anger and more harmony among the sexes. Sorry flash and Deedah, but you men are dinosaurs.

-- Carol Carter (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 02, 2000.


Carol,

Somehow you and Anita (with whom I usually agree) just don't get it on the military issue. Your statement that "Flash and Deedah know they can't handle it" is simply not true. I've noticed this sort of misstatement on several recent threads dealing with so-called feminist issues.

The military is not some sort of equal opportunity social club. War is not some kind of Grand Game, at least not to those who actually fight and die in it. The issue is what makes the most effective fighting force. In a war you have two choices, win or lose. The side that loses usually suffers immensely. As Uncle Deedah says, go talk to some recently discharged military men about the morale and state of readiness in today's American military. You'll be shocked and upset at what you hear.

Anita said "I also see this happening within the next generation or two." I sure as hell hope you are right, Anita. But history says you are wrong. Historicaly whenever a culture becomes too affluent, liberal, and lax and allows itself to become weak militarily, before long the Huns come over the hill and stomp their A$$. I say that the big one will be with the Chinese, and in our lifetimes. We will likely get into it in several places around the world beforehand, such as Kosovo, the Korean Peninsula, and the Middle East.

Please keep a copy of this thread around for posterity, and recall what Unc and I have said when the S*+T hits the fan, and a lot of Americans die needlessly because we aren't properly prepared.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.


Unk,

Thanks for starting this discussion, you have created an oppertunity to discuss these ideas.

I was specific in what I wrote about fighting

Back to women in combat, to this day if it were necessary, I would and could fight in combat to protect this country. A lot of women would, the same as a lot of men would if it came down to the necessity of doing so.

I specifically said "if necessary", I agree with this sentiment As to the front line grunt scenario, that is the one place that I believe should be left to the men, even if a gal could handle it physically I think that overall moral and discipline would be best served by all male units. for the reason that it is a fact that men, no matter how "liberated", by their very nature, feel the need to protect women, that is not a bad thing, it is what is, the same as it is in a womans nature to nurture.

We cannot have it all "One sided" where we accept our nature as women and deny the nature of men.

What I am concerned about is having women on the front lines and in the trenches and out on sea duty with us guys.

I agree with the front line and trenches thought, as for sea duty, there is different reasoning attached which I will address further on.

But in the trenches, it's better to leave it a man's world.

Yes, that goes back to where it advantages for men to be physically strong and agressive. Which comes down to mens nature again, which should not be denied.

I was in the USAF-SAC to be exact.

as consisting of ironic observations that were very interesting and contained a lot of truth. It was definitely amusing, and gave me a big smile, but I didn't see humor as the main intent. Maybe I missed the point, though?

No, Eve you got the point and amusment was the goal. Perhaps my humor is amusement as opposed to laughter.

Jeez Cherri, the only thing worse than a dyke tennis player is a dyke that rambles on about war stories. Sounds like your experience in the military messed your head up pretty good.

That is funny, I was TDY at Wright Patterson when Billy Jean King proved her point. Having bet a lot of males inthe bar where we watched it, I ended up with drinks lined up down the bar. I shared them with "my troops", who knew me and had laughed when the others had lined up to bet with me. As for for messing up my head, that statement shows something you lack and are attempting to fill by expressing the belief that I am a gay woman who hates males just because I accept and acknowledge the my proficiency in my abilities.

Flash,

I agree with you on the points of military necessity. The military is not the same as civilian life, when a person takes their pledge in joining, they are accepting the mandates that are necessary my a force which is in place to protect our country. The military does not exist to cater to individual ideas and beliefs.

The purpose of having a military force is to defend the country and prevail in war. The issue is not about women's rights, but rather what makes our military the most effective fighting machine. The military has never been an "individual rights" organization. Quite the contrary, individual rights have always been subordinated to the collective good. We should do what facilitates the most effective combat units.

Eve,

Yes, some men could get distracted, but couldn't some training on anticipating problems of this nature, along with focusing and concentration techniques help with this?

It is not the responsibility of the military to complicate their effort to train men to accept even more conflicts in the duty they have accepted. It is difficult enough for them to strip societys mores away and nurture the agressive nature of men so they will kill, which is the job of those in the front line of combat, without throwing more psychological conflicts into the fire for men to deal with. I stated I would and could fight, I did not say that I should have been allowed to. If necessary I will, but I don't desire to any more than most men do. Men go through a lot of hell over being put in a position that conflicts with their life long way of life they are taken from and thrown back into after they have finished, without adding more.

Fortunatly it is not necessary for front line-in the trenches-combat any more, at least it has not been for a while.

I agree that everyone who wants to serve, and is *able* to, should be able to. But I don't think the Services should have to double their costs to be able to do so. Put everyone in the same barracks and latrines, shave everyone's head, make everyone go through the same basic training, and the let best people fight.

The cost is not a factor and unnecessary because there have been seperate facilities for decades. Moot point.

The overwhelming inequities outside of the combat area were what had to be changed, such as in my field-which was "male only" for no logical reason, and I am proud to admit I was involved in helping to bring about those changes. I never whined, I did stand up and take some regulations on in the accepted manner allowed by the military, a few which only took logical discussion, some in which I had to do nothing more than my job to prove. It was not easy I guess and not a lot of females would have ended up where I was in the first place, much less have the drive to see what was wrong and know how to go about changing things.

I worked with men who had never had a female be their peer in their field. I was more than aware of the conflict for men to work physically close to women, I compensated for it until they learned how to adjust. I spent a lot of time physically close to men with our arms intertwined in the process of working on equipment, I was aware that it was difficult and a new experience for a lot of them so I gave them time to adjust to it. Many did. We had simulators on train cars which traveled around the country to train pilots, we were away together. The assumption that that could cause problems was valad, but it took nothing more than me respecting their discomfort and showing them that I would not take advantage of the situation to use my feminity to manipulate. Once they learned I was not going to play female games it became normal. I believe that women were allowed on ships indiscrimitly, without weeding out the ones who would use it to their advantage and manipulate men in male/female assignments.

That has happened in a lot of areas, in civilian work where women use their sexuality to manipulate and "play games", much like LL attemps to do. It is those who make it look bad for all women. I think there should be a weeding out of women and men who bring negitive behavior to situations such as long term close assignments such as on ships. I do not think women should not be there, because there are those who are capable of being professional, as there are males who are. But those (male and female) who are not, should be left on land to do the support work. It did not take a lot of self control for me to work physically close to men, I grew up with nothing but brothers and never learned to play "female games". It was a learning experience for some of the men I worked with, but they adjusted and learned also. It definatly was a necessary adjustment for a lot of them but they managed to.

It was not at all easy for me, I realise that now, but at the time when I was experiencing being a "pioneer" I did not think of it that way. I respected my co-workers as individuals and believe once they got over the uniquness of my being female, they had no problem doing the same for me.

I have to laugh about the "huge manly gorilla dykes statement. Years after I walked into my first assignment I was told by one of my male co-workers that when they learned a female was assigned, they pictured me as a female gorilla type woman with knuckles dragging the ground. They wer surprised to see a 5'4", 105 lb, quite me show up.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 02, 2000.


Please keep a copy of this thread around for posterity, and recall what Unc and I have said when the S*+T hits the fan, and a lot of Americans die needlessly because we aren't properly prepared.

Oh PLEASE(!) When the S*=T hits WHAT fan? Who do you think is crazy enough to mess with us? We are the most technologically advanced country in the world, and for someone to wage war on us would be tantamount to suicide. We would wipe out any enemy in a heartbeat and IF some idiot wanted to play nuclear games with us, what good would having an all-male force have anyway?

Like I said: You are a dinosaur.

-- (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 02, 2000.


More snooze material from Cheri.

ZzzzzZZzZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cheri you keep telling people how little you were a hundred years ago. Why have you failed to mention how fat and dumpy you are now?

-- (snooze@button.clang!), June 02, 2000.


Flash:

HISTORICALLY, men have seen women as sex objects. NEVER before in history has this been disputed because never before in history have young men experienced relationships in which sex was NOT the goal.

I mentioned in another thread that my daughter has two young, heterosexual males as roommates in the house they share. These young men see their GIRLFRIENDS as sex-partners, but I feel confident that my daughter could run around the house naked and not blink an eye. In the same way, her roommates could run around naked and she wouldn't blink an eye. Times they are a changin', Flash.

War certainly is NOT a game. I noticed a lot of testosterone thrown around last year when folks talked about how they'd kill pollies. I didn't notice anyone suggesting that pollies had guns as well and would be fighting back. Of course the Chinese would throw more men into a war. China has had an excess of men ever since their government established the one-child only deal. There aren't enough females for young chinese men to find mates.

You're making the assumption that females who are inclined to fight for their country lack the necessary testosterone? You're suggesting that women may be able to fight on their home-ground, but not in foreign lands? Believe me, Frank, there are some women that could kick butt better than any man *I*'ve ever known, and they wouldn't even need a reason. I'm not one of them, but this doesn't mean I'm unaware of their existence. I went to a mostly male high-school, and had a shift in the women's counseling office once/week. There were young girls even then that had the stomach for more than the typical man.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.


Carol,

Did I say anything about nuclear games?

If you'd like to start discussing details and facts on a new thread, I'd be glad to join you. I subscribe to several publications that give a timely perspective on what's REALLY going on in the world (e.g. Jane's Intelligence Digest, Terrorism and Security Monitor, Islamic Affairs Digest, Air Force Magazine, etc.) How about you? Believe me there are plenty of nasty folks out there itching to tangle A$$ with us when they think the time is right. And it may not be much longer before they're ready. Of course we don't hear much about reality in the establishment press.

What happens when our technology based force runs out of smart bombs and spare parts? Klintoon has already used up most of our Tomahawk cruise missles, and they were modifying the nuclear-tipped ALCM's for conventional use in Bosnia. We're reportedly low on smart bombs and a significant percentage of our aircraft are not flyable due to a lack of spare parts. Our overall military readiness is the lowest in years, and morale not far behind. Do some homework before jumping to emotional based conclusions. And remember, save the thread!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.


Anita, you said,

You're suggesting that women may be able to fight on their home-ground, but not in foreign lands? Believe me, Frank, there are some women that could kick butt better than any man *I*'ve ever known, and they wouldn't even need a reason

Were you really addressing this to me?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.


OK, guys I'll modify my statement by adding "When *MOST* men start taking as much responsibility...." I do know there are many wonderful men that care for, spend money and time with the kids after a divorce, and don't even run mom down when they have them.

But we all know this is the exception. I never got the full amount of child support when I was raising my child. In fact I never got more than $60.00 a month. And there are thousands of women that don't get a damn dime and the dads don't even come around to see the kids. This is more often the case. Women most always get the shaft when it comes to caring for kids. Even those who get plenty of monetary support still have to be with the sick kid and still go to work the next day.

But I'm not a man hater at all, and I do hate it when a woman tries to see how much misery she can cause a dad after a divorce.

Speaking of this thread as a joke, it might help if all the cruddy, discounting statement by the guys had a :) or whatever a grin is, so we'll know when you're kidding. It's really hard to see your expressions on this damned screen.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 02, 2000.


My apologies, Frank. The F went onto the keyboard and the end result was Frank instead of Flash. I agree with you on this one. Although Cherri has indicated that the military has already changed to include separate accommodations, I never agreed with the need for it. If the military accepts men who get "turned on" by watching ME take a dump, I think we need better standards of acceptance. As Flash stated, the military is NOT for everyone.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Talk to guys who have been there Carol. The ones I have spoken to have seen it first hand. Having girls in the ranks causes trouble that did not exist when it was just guys in the ranks. I have said that YES I think women should be allowed to serve in the military. What I do not think is that women can do all of the things that a man can do when it comes to brute physical grunt work.

I think if people were a little more accomodating, instead of rigid like flash and Deedah, there would be less anger and more harmony among the sexes. Sorry flash and Deedah, but you men are dinosaurs.

Yes by all means we should be accomodating. Even if it means that combat readiness declines. It is much more important that we have a military that promotes harmony between the sexes, than having one that can kick ass in a serious war. If I am a dinosaur then you are deluded Carol.

I have heard the stories of girls who cannot pull their own weight in the ground-pounder role. Two females doing the work of one male when building sand-bag walls and the like. Look at that picture on the website that eve provided. Look at those girls trying to clean the barrel of that tank main gun, twice as many girls to do the job as it would require of guys. But I guess that isn't important, since war and battle are just an exercise in promoting harmony between the sexes.

Maybe the US government should force the NFL to hire female players, so that harmony between the sexes is promoted. Why is it Carol that females do not play in the NHL, MLB, or pro basketball, why do not females play golf or tennis against guys either? If women are just as able to do hard physical labor as guys please show me all of the pro female sports figures that dominate the field against men.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.


Well, I'm think women can do most things a man can and just as well. But when it comes to the military I think women should have the same opportunities *except* for combat.

OK, this is one place I'm old fashioned. But I can just see all kinds of problems here. Most have been mentioned, so I'll hush. This is probably a flaw on my part, because frankly, even if I were young and strong again, I'd probably be so scared that I'd sit back on my haunches and howl like a baby out of sheer terror.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 02, 2000.


When it comes to blowing people away, people who have kids and mothers and families...you can count me OUT. I wouldn't want to be on the front lines of a war. I really don't think most women COULD do this in reality. If the military were all women, there wouldn't NEED to be war. Women are different that way. We can usually work things out without resorting to violence. Hopefully my boys will learn this from me. p.s...Have you never heard that women have a far higher pain tolerance than men?

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), June 02, 2000.

[snip]

"brute physical grunt work"

That's what machines are for. If machines aren't available, *some* women are just as capable of digging ditches as *some* men. If you're trying to argue the archtypal male physical specimen with the strongest female specimen, then yes, the man is superior. But, why do that? There are MANY women stronger than many men. THOSE women should have the opportunity to serve in any capacity of their chosing.

As far as brute force in combat goes: guns are the great equalizer. Granted, there are instances when people must go hand-to-hand and a lot of women would lose when faced with a larger opponent -- but so would a man.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that most females in their teens and twenties today are taller and stronger than most Orientals (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc.) Would you change your view if we were at war with China?

Deedah, I'd like to ask you and flash to consider what I've just said and if you really believe women don't belong on the front line then consider this:

It's not up to you.

Smarter men have already allowed women in the Citadel, and will allow women in combat. We pay taxes just like you do and we have equal rights -- THAT combination allows us to die for this wonderful country of ours if we chose.

We can do that because this country isn't run by dinosaurs :o)

-- (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 02, 2000.


Oh I'm sorry Carol, I was under the impression that I was talking to someone who had an inkling of what the military is all about. I shall not do it again, sorry.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

It's unclear in my mind why some of you are dismissing Carol's words. Her thoughts are not so different than my own. She's looking AHEAD, NOT behind.

Certainly, we should entertain the experiences of those who have served in the military, just as we should entertain the experiences of those who walked 6 miles to school uphill both ways. However, this is NOT the FUTURE of the military, nor is it even the PRESENT for those who remember walking 6 miles to school uphill each way.

I've not seen myself receiving the flames that Carol is receiving. Why is this? Is this forum becoming so homogeneous that anyone with a new thought who expresses an opinion contrary to some others is met with flames? Is it because Carol referenced dinosaurs in her posts and I did not? Help me out here.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.


Carol,

You had better hope that our military stays predominently made up of dinosaurs like Unc and myself, and light on women like you, or only God can help us. You live in dreamland.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.


Anita,

I don't recall Unc and myself calling anyone dinosaurs or other derogatory names. I also think that we have been trying to deal with facts and what we have experienced as reality rather than emotional, philosophical arguments. We are obviously in touch with a lot more real life information than Carol indicates she is aware of.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.


A woman's body isn't designed for combat. Menstruation, breast development, wider hips, and a higher percentage of body fat are all geared for reproduction. Women who want to go into the the front lines in the military have to fight the genetic disposition of their own bodies to even begin to compete.

-- helen (b@t.s), June 02, 2000.

Unk:

"Maybe the US government should force the NFL to hire female players, so that harmony between the sexes is promoted. Why is it Carol that females do not play in the NHL, MLB, or pro basketball, why do not females play golf or tennis against guys either? If women are just as able to do hard physical labor as guys please show me all of the pro female sports figures that dominate the field against men."

Um...I think that if you look CLOSELY, Unk, females simply aren't allowed on men's sports team. Even if they WERE, they haven't been allowed on teams that "grew" the skillsets since childhood until just recently. Bad example there. I WOULD like to know, however, why the "rules" were suddenly changed when Tiger Wood started kicking butt on the golf circuit.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.


Good grief, Helen. Had I had wider hips and more body fat than men my age when I was of draft age, you sure could have fooled ME. Menstruation was never a problem either. If push came to shove, my body would just bleed into the fatigues. I'd perhaps attract more than my share of dogs, but who else would notice?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

I agree with Anita and Carol that many women are as strong and some stronger than some men, and as able to do the job they were trained for.

But I agree with Deedah that women should not be mixing with men in the actual dirty job if fighting with the enemy. ONLY because of the inherent clashing of the sexes when it comes to getting along. A unit in combat depends on each other for their lives, they depend on this special bond that is only possible among the same sex, this special understanding and gut feel only people of same sex have for each other. And they depend on a solid trust of each other. This constant clashing of sexes , so apparent on this forum, certainly can't be leading to the kind of bond and trust needed in the heat of battle.

Women, IMO, would go a long way to being respected and needed if they concentrated on military jobs where they could demonstrate their talents in other just as equally important areas, but where a difference of sexes wasn't so important.

-- (y@x.x), June 02, 2000.


Anita, bless you, honey -- but you look like a little bitty woman...and your nutritional requirements are differents just because you ARE a woman and not a young man.

-- helen (b@t.s), June 02, 2000.

In my personal experience, men ALWAYS try to protect women in dangerous situations. Men don't need to deal with that reaction on top of everything else in combat. This male trait is probably also rooted in genetics. Women must survive in order to procreate.

-- helen (b@t.s), June 02, 2000.

Helen:

Yes...my bones are small. This isn't about ME, however. I've already stated that I have absolutely NO interest in signing up for the military. I KNOW I couldn't meet the bill, and even if I COULD, I wouldn't desire it.

Y: I've worked for 36 hours straight with 5 men in a small space. A team is a team once the team is formed. Gender plays absolutely NO role. Actually, I lied on that one. The men stunk far worse than I after 36 hours....actually sooner than 36 hours.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.


umm, helen. How MANY children have you had??

(YOU can't do anything BUT procreate.)

-- (I know@ I know.Iknow), June 03, 2000.


Anita, it is about you. You ally yourself with Carol in this debate. Carol is talking theory. Unk is talking experience. Unk is not a dinosaur. ALL men are subject to registration for service. If you and Carol want total equality, then your daughters and mine will have to register too someday. Women do not belong in combat service alongside men. The men who have been there, done that, know what they're talking about.

-- helen (b@t.s), June 03, 2000.

I know -- as best I've been able to tell from things the women on this thread have posted, I've given birth more often. To assume that's ALL I can do is silly.

-- helen (b@t.s), June 03, 2000.

I'm sorry Anita. I hope my post didn't sound like you.

-- (I know@ is NOT .Anita), June 03, 2000.

Gee, why am I flaming Carol?

Lets see here, after calling me a dinosaur because I hold a differing view she comes up with the following:

Smarter men have already allowed women in the Citadel, and will allow women in combat. We pay taxes just like you do and we have equal rights

I know that there are smarter men around than I, but I do have enough mind power in this tiny dinosaur brain to recognize another insult. And for Carols information, smarter men than I (or her) also agree with me that women serving in front line combat units is a bad idea. Some of these guys actually serve in the military, believe it or not. These guys are not politicians who need to worry about the womens vote, they are the ones who must win our wars and are far more versed than Carol about how that mission is best accomplished.

And for Carols information the Citadel is not a front line combat unit, it is a school of higher knowledge. Carol, a school is not a combat unit, there are more than a few differences between the two. But Carol is not the type to let a few facts get in the way of her argument, or else she would have cited the requested dominant female athletes who wipe the boys up and down the field as I asked her to do.

You see Carol, the object of the military is to kill the enemy, to crush them without mercy, to do it quickly and efficiently if possible, and then to hold the ground that has been taken from said enemy. To hold ground requires more than pushing buttons even in todays high tech battlefield, it requires brute force. Men are better evolved for missions that involve brute force than are women, to deny this is totally illogical and more than a little dishonest. The enemy will send its strongest most brutal fighters against us, and we cannot send less than that ourselves or the enemy will crush us, and then Carol your precious equal rights will not mean squat to the victors. If the day should come when all front line fighting is done by robots through remote control I will have no problem with women controlling the robots, but that day is not yet here.

Um...I think that if you look CLOSELY, Unk, females simply aren't allowed on men's sports team. Even if they WERE, they haven't been allowed on teams that "grew" the skillsets since childhood until just recently. Bad example there. I WOULD like to know, however, why the "rules" were suddenly changed when Tiger Wood started kicking butt on the golf circuit.

If a coach sees a girl who can pass a ball better than John Elway he will not care what sex she is, the coach wants to win. And as far as rules being changed when Tiger started kicking ass I do not know what you mean, Tiger was a guy the last I heard.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 03, 2000.


Helen:

AFAIK, the draft hasn't been activated since Vietnam. The armed forces are totally volunteer now, and they have rigid standards of acceptance. GONE are the days when they accepted any riff-raff trying to cop-out of society. I know of several young people who were accepted and flunked out. This is acceptable to me.

"Women do not belong in combat service alongside men. The men who have been there, done that, know what they're talking about."

I don't agree. SOME women are quite capable of serving alongside men. YOU have obviously made up your mind that women don't belong. I won't fight that. The next war will not necessarily be the same as the last. THIS is what Carol is talking about, and I have no problem with seeing future possibilities/opportunities. There was a time when blacks weren't seen as acceptable in the armed forces either. Think about it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.


Anita, think about it. ALL males are required to register for service. We aren't at war and the draft isn't in force -- but the registration is legally required in case that changes. You want equality in all things...and this is one area where you really don't know what you're talking about. Women have a genetic handicap when it comes to combat readiness. YOU have no interest in the military, and yet you would have MY daughters registering for military combat service. That's the bottom line here -- you want total equality in all things? Please. Unk is absolutely right about this.

-- helen (b@t.s), June 03, 2000.

Unk:

I don't have the link in front of me right now, but once Tiger [a BLACK man] started winning over the classic WHITE men, the rules were changed in golf to give the white players an advantage they'd never before had.

I also disagree with your comments on a female being accepted into pro sports teams simply based on their skill-level. The old "She'll never fit in, the other players won't accept her argument will prevail." If you don't believe this, talk to Kritter about her daughter's involvement in team sports. This philosophy of "not good enough to compete with the boys" begins in childhood.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.


Helen:

My daughters are far more fit to serve than my son. YOU want MY son to serve? He's a nerd! He's FAR more qualified to engage in a chess game than he is to even engage in 50 pushups. Daughter #2 has been the one who has engaged in the physical pursuits in my family. If I had my dithers, I'd suggest she were the most fit, and she could care less if the men around her observe her taking a dump.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.


In case you missed it Anita this is not an argument about race.

The armed forces are totally volunteer now, and they have rigid standards of acceptance.

Talk to guys who have spent years in service and they will say that breaks are cut for women who cannot hack the physical demands placed upon them. This is true, but not openly discussed in the new Politically Correct military.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 03, 2000.


Is it just me? Or does Anita have a scatalogical fixation?

-- likes to (talk@bout.taking.dumps), June 03, 2000.

Anita, you just don't get this one. Good night. :)

-- helen (b@t.s), June 03, 2000.

Unk:

I UNDERSTAND that breaks have been offered to women. I agree that this is totally incorrect. For ME, this isn't an issue of political correctness. It isn't an issue of race or gender. It's an issue of who is best qualified to do the job. Race or gender should NOT give one an advantage, nor should it give one a disadvantage.

If I portrayed a picture in which I felt that women should willy- nilly be offered a position minus qualifications to perform, I certainly apologize. OTOH, however, I do not feel that women should willy-nilly be dismissed as being qualified simply because Helen feels that women are better suited for child-bearing.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.


Good point there on mentioning the dumps twice now. I'll try to keep scatological functions BEHIND me from now on in this thread.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.

Hang "tight" Nita. Truth and Justice are on our side so let the doomers wallow in your S*=T.

No need to apologize -- ever.

I'll be back tomorrow to finish my argument (although I doubt that too many are listening to us and this discourse is pointless.)

-- (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 03, 2000.


BTW, before I lay my unworthy body (unlike Dunk )down to sleep, I'd like you and gilda to know that I'd like to stay up all night talking to you both in LV in the Fall.

-- (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 03, 2000.

(I just KNOW I'm gonna regret this)

After reading (and reading and reading..) this thread I can't resist it any longer.

As to women in combat, let me first say that I have never been in the military. But in early life I spent five years as a professional firefighter/EMT. So I have been in harm's way, and had it been military, I would have at least three purple hearts. I absolutely loved the job, and would still be there, but I went down with a collapsing roof one frosty morning, and got a bad disc for my trouble. I was 29 years old, 6'2", 190 pounds. You could have boiled me down and not gotten a cup of fat. But I quit the department because I knew that my back could not be counted on in a life or death situation.

I don't know what my point is, except sometimes, we need to back off and see the big picture to make the right decisions.

Oh, and a confession -I'm sorry ladies, but no amount of training could undo my stereotypical male attitude. If you and I were members of a combat team, I would always, always, treat you differently than a male counterpart, and like it or not, I would have a heightened sense of protection for you. Of course, after about a week, you'd shoot me yourself, so that problem would be solved. :)

As to career women, my mom worked the entire time that she helped rear her three boys. And that was still somewhat rare in the days of Ozzie and Harriet. Yet, none of us are in prison (so far), and one even became a doctor. Later, when she was widowed and over 50, she volunteered for a missionary support position. This lady, who had not a single macho bone in her body, went to "jungle camp", learned to swim and paddle a canoe, and speak pidgin English. She then spent the large part of 20 years in a grass-walled cabin in the New Guinea highlands. I treasure a photo of her, flowered dress and huge combat boots, being pulled by one boy, and posterially pushed by another, climbing a muddy forest track. Her room mate and partner was a little lady almost ten years her senior.

Well, that's about it. Except for an idea that come to me just now (or maybe it's a Freudian left-over of some teen age sci-fi movie). What if we had another Geneva Convention which restricted all the military of all the countries of the world to female-only? Now there's a concept. What would war be like without testosterone? Would there be, could there be, war without testosterone? I know I would be all for it. Especially if we could get those camo French-maid uniforms someone mentioned above! :)

-----------------------------------------------

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 03, 2000.


In the end I think it'll come down to how desperate we are:

Now, without a threat, there's no reason for the politicos NOT to appease everyone, and put everyone in the military.

When we go to war, we'll use our best, regardless of who they are.

If things get really desperate, we'll use anyone, even kids.

Hopefully, we'll never get that far.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 03, 2000.


Ah LON ya beat me to it. And NOW I know what it is about uyou I like and enjoy.

Having been a paramedic, out on the street with a private ambulance company (and anybody who thinks that ain't a version of combat hain't been out on the streets of MY city) I will say that I have worked with female partners who were MORE capable than I was, and others who were NOT.

Now, Daddy raised me to be unfailingly polite (and I have backslid some, but that's fer another post), and I seem to have found that I are a closet MCP because I ALWAYS tried to make sure I was the one closest to the patient and my female partner was closest to the door in unfriendly country. Just reflex, folks. Happens. I don't care if it WAS the snalrling dyke or the absolutely neat and WAY fine lookin one. Didn't matter.

Jest my perspective from the inner front lines. OH yeah, as a race medic I STILL try to make sure my female partners are on the right side of the car and away from traffic, while I go to the wrong, dangerous side. Doesn't matter whether the partner is my bride of 25 er 26 years or one of the 3 people I have no normal use for. The wiring STILL kicks in.

Chuck

PS the best lifters of my partners were the smaller females because they were better matched to my 5'5" frame. (Fer those of you who understand the Ambulance priorities)

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), June 03, 2000.


I agree with Helen. Women can certainly change their attitudes as much as they wish, but the body was not meant to be changed. We seldom see men in charge of caring for children at day care centers unless they are very feminine men. In the same way, we should seldom see women in certain very physically demanding conditions unless they are very masculine women. There are of course a small percentage of people that were born with more hormones of the opposite sex (women with mustaches, etc.), but they are the exception. Women like cin and Gilda who have been shafted by scumbags should not put themselves in situations where they don't belong just to "get revenge" on men by proving that they can be just as tough. Look at the animal kingdom. For the most part, males do the hunting and killing, females do the nurturing and caring. Try to change the way nature is meant to work and you'll end up with some kind of freakzoid mutant hermaphrodites.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 03, 2000.

"Look at the animal kingdom. For the most part, males do the hunting and killing, females do the nurturing and caring. Try to change the way nature is meant to work and you'll end up with some kind of freakzoid mutant hermaphrodites."

Huh? For the most part, females do BOTH the hunting and killing AND the nurturing and caring, save those species that share the burdens.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.


Here's a lengthy, yet unbiased article on The History of Women in Combat.

It not only goes into the history of women who fought in combat throughout the world, but discusses both the objective and subjective arguments presented by both sides in the debate. This latter portion pretty much mirrored the opinions seen on this subject in this thread.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.


This thread has a good life considering that it began as a joke. But I think the lesson best illustrated by the dialog here is why husbands eventually just say "Yes dear" and turn on the ball game.

;-) <------for Gilda.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 03, 2000.


Who won that little skirmish?

-- flora (***@__._), June 03, 2000.

LOL, Flora. I don't know. but the playground is littered with casualties.

Hawk, that might not have been the best of illustrations. I think 'nita is more nearly on target here. Just think, in a pride of African lions, for example, the females do their share and more of both hunting and nurturing. While the males take care of the breeding duties, sleep in the sun, and growl a lot.

............(hey,.....wait....a......minute.... we may be on to something here!)

----------------------------------------------------------------

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 03, 2000.


That's what I'm AFRAID of, you clown!

-- flora (***@__._), June 03, 2000.

RRRRRRRROOOOOOOWWWWWWLLLLLLLL!!!!

;)

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 03, 2000.


Flora:

Have you EVER seen an internet debate won or lost? That's not the purpose, I don't think. No one will walk away believing any differently than when they walked in. I couldn't help but notice that the majority of the public feels that women SHOULD be allowed an opportunity for combat. I learned that while reading the link I provided. I was totally unaware of that, so I learned something.

I think we learn something in ALL these debates, if nothing more than how others feel on a topic.

Unk: I must admit you know how to pick 'em. Who woulda thunk this joke thread would have taken such a turn?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.


'Nita,

It was a joke, hon.

This roundabout thread has cast a whole new spin on the term 'friendly fire'.

-- flora (***@__._), June 03, 2000.


[This thread has a good life considering that it began as a joke. But I think the lesson best illustrated by the dialog here is why husbands eventually just say "Yes dear" and turn on the ball game.]

[-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 03, 2000.]

Unk - I can't think of a better way to say it!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 03, 2000.


As long and hard as I worked in proving that women were capable of performing in fields that were once considered male only, I have to be intellectually honest and agree that it would be detrimental for women to be allowed in ground combat. Having been brought up in a military family, having experienced my own military training, knowledge, and understanding of the purpose of the military, I have to agree with those who emphatically stress the point that women do NOT have a place on the front lines of combat.

It does not matter if some women could do the job, it makes no difference if it is "felt" that it is "unfair" to deny them the opportunity to prove themselves.

As others have said "war is war" and if we, as women, celebrate our "Lilith", it would be hypocritical to deny the fact that male nature exists.

There are more than physical differences between men and women. Our hormones perform different functions, if we did not have an increase in estrogen during pregnancy then we would be pretty pissed off over the discomfort we experience.

As Helen pointed out men ALWAYS try to protect women in dangerous situations. Men don't need to deal with that reaction on top of everything else in combat. This male trait is probably also rooted in genetics. I believe it is due to hormones as opposed to genetics though.

It is natural for women to protect their young, it is in our nature. Even though a lot of the the behaviors that men have toward women are learned, there is a part of their nature to protect the female. I don't think all of it is the idea that women are weak and need protecting, I believe a good portion is rooted in their awe of women's ability to become pregnant and bear children. It should be noted that the time some women are at their most aggressive, when they are premenstrual, their estrogen levels have dropped and their testosterone levels, percentage wise, are at their highest.

It is no more appropriate to belittle men according to their physical makeup than it was to do so to women.

The incorrect treatment of women and minorities etc. was a wrong that needed to be righted. It is inappropriate, and makes us just as guilty, to hold the same attitudes against men. I honestly believe that most men were not aware of just how wrong things were with the way women were "positioned" or treated 30-40 years ago. After all they were content with the situation. Wives were a replacement for Mother and life was good. Unfortunately men did not get the pleasure of being experiencing what it was really like to be a female. I think they have now been taught.

We, as women, should not go to unreasonable extremes and demand that something as critically important as the the defense of our country be put at risk simply because "there are some" females who could perform the job as a front line foot soldier.

Geeze this sounds like I am contradicting myself, having myself broken through areas once reserved for male only. I understanding, using my brain is what brings me to these conclusions. I know I could bomb the hell out of a target on the ground or in the air, but when it comes down to the attributes necessary to be a combat foot soldier, I KNOW I am inadequate, as are most women. It is the testosterone in men which gives them the physical and aggressive and mental ability to function as needed in those situations.

This is an area where it is more important to be realistic than idealistic.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 03, 2000.


Anita, I was really tired last night and had to quit before you and I reached an understanding.

I was trying to point out that women in military combat positions have built-in physical limitations that must be overcome in order for them to be able to serve in that capacity.

I think men have built-in psychological responses toward women that would render them less effective in combat.

In no way have I ever claimed that women are suited only for childbearing. It's just that the adaptations for childbearing make it more difficult for a woman to "fight like a man" in military combat.

As for women in combat, if you look at historical examples, women were fighting on their home ground. They weren't sent as invasion forces. I pray God we never have to fight on this ground -- but if necessary, you and I would.

To equate the discrimination against black men in combat positions in the military with the same type of discrimination against women is incorrect. Black men are MEN. The differences between black and white men are superficial compared to the differences between men and women -- male/female differences take place on the chromosomal level in every cell of our bodies.

Men with military combat experience have told you that they don't think women in combat units is a good idea. I think their opinions should carry a great deal of weight in the discussion. Cherri's opinions ought to carry even more weight because she's actually been in the military.

Observation: People often equate giving birth to several children with reduced intelligence, ambition, and education. They make assumptions about our religion based solely on our family size. They don't seem to mind saying so, often in person and in front of the children. So much for a woman's right to choose...

-- helen (b@t.s), June 03, 2000.


Hi helen,

I'm curious. You posted the following:

"A woman moved is like a fountain troubled, Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty; And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty Will deign to sip, or touch one drop of it. Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee, And for thy maintenance commits his body To painful labour both by sea and land, To watch the night in storms, the day in cold, Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe; And craves no other tribute at thy hands But love, fair looks, and true obedience,..."

Do you think "a woman moved" ever has anything positive to contribute?

Do you think all husbands are "lords?"

In that "tribute" where does a woman's mind fit in?

And finally, should I be teaching my daughters these things?

-- Debra (yourjoking@right?.com), June 04, 2000.


Don't tell me, let me guess...

The women who are against women in combat (Cherri and helen) are women who are dependant on a man for their existance. The women who are for women in combat are women who are NOT dependant on a man for their existance (me, Debra, and Anita).

How am I doing so far?

-- Carol Carter (Carol_Carter@net.care), June 04, 2000.


O.K., I've been cranky at all my posts today, so here's one more:

Debra,

It's unfair to criticize Helen based on (what I assume is part of) a poem she wrote, the expression of a *sentiment* shouldn't be considered her world-view. Also, it does a great deal to chill freedom of expression.

Carol,

Personally, (male here) I've got mixed feelings about women fighting. Having both a son and daughter, letting women fight radically increases the odds that my daughter will get called, but OTOH decreases the chance my son will get called. What to do, what to do?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 04, 2000.


"Having both a son and daughter, letting women fight radically increases the odds that my daughter will get called, but OTOH decreases the chance my son will get called."

Not really. They still need just as many men to do the real job, they just let the women in because they get tired of listening to the kind of griping that we see on this thread.

-- give women what they want (as.long.as.it.will@shut.them.up), June 04, 2000.


You know...just because a woman decides to marry, STAY married, and have children, doesn't necessarily mean that she is dependent upon a man for her existence.

I believe that women wouldn't do well in combat because I think it goes against their nature. Unless of course they are protecting their family from immediate danger. And I am just about as independent as a woman can possibly get.

War, huh, good gawd yaw, what is it good for? Absolutely Nuthin!

Peace, love, and bobby sherman =)

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), June 04, 2000.


Frank,

I hope you feel better. I think what helen posted was written by Shakespeare not by her. Since helen posted it I'm wondering if she agrees with these thoughts.

Carol,

I'm for the best person for the job and I don't believe that person will always be the male.

I think we all need to recognize that the day may come when war visits us here. Our males may not be able to hold that "front line" and if they don't I think we owe it to our daughters and sons alike to have our females prepared. That has got to start with the acknowledgement that females are capable and that they have the respect that we would afford any other "team" member.

If we continue to tell our daughters that they don't have the ability to wage war then they will not be an asset but a liability to our sons and our country.

Shakespeare's words about women sitting there and looking pretty for her "lord" just don't cut it in today's world. I want my daughters to have the "can do" attitude for themselves as well as for my son, my parents, my elderly neighbors, the little boy and girl down the street and for the team we call America.

And no, Carol, I am not dependant on a man for my existance.

-- Debra (...@....), June 04, 2000.


Carol,

How are you doing? Terrible so far. I am not now and never have been dependant on a man for my existance since I was a child and my Father filled that role.

Anita, Thank you for the link on history of women in the combat.

Fortunatly it is unlikely that we, in the USA, will again have to fight a war where it is necessary to use front line ground combat troops.

I have to admitt that the report has given me a lot to think about, some of it I could have written myself :o), most I was not aware of. I wish the politicians would get out of the military.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 04, 2000.


That's right Uncle D----- Insult us--

and when we earnestly protest, "No, wait, we can do more than cook, really we can,"--

Then wave your hand in dismissal and walk off.

Well, it looks like the ladies aren't buying the typical male response. Go ladies!

-- I'm (grinning@amused.com), June 04, 2000.


Give,

Well stated.

I just thank the Lord that there are still many women who understand better than the denialists on this thread. I just hope they are enough to make a difference in the next election.

Cherri, Helen, Cin, thanks for giving us hope!

It's interesting to notice that a majority of the posters who seem to favor radical equality over balanced participation claim to "not be dependent on a man". I wonder why they're so hypersensitive about that issue?

It's also an insult to all the wonderful women who view their men as partners in life and don't have a chips on their shoulders.

-- U Know Who (UKW@some.never.learn), June 04, 2000.


I'm grinning,

I have yet to see a sound rebuttal to my position that men are better suited to the physical rigors of front line combat.

The best that you ladies can come up with is that "some" women "may" be able to hold their own against "some" men in front line combat units, and that any problems associated with allowing women to fight up front can be "trained" out of us males. That position shows an ignorance as to what the mission of the military is all about. I want the best and strongest army fighting on our side, not the army that is most sensitive to some women wanting to prove their manliness.

Since YOU are so SMART, grinning, why don't you provide examples of superior female athletes? Please name all of the women who can kick the shit out of Mike Tyson, would you? You cannot, I know. That is why you hide behind an alias, like the troll you are.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.


Cherri:

"Anita, Thank you for the link on history of women in the combat."

I thought it a good one, and one that addressed just about every argument that has been made on this thread. Thanks for taking the time to read it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.


Ordinarily, I don't sound off on boards unless there's a legal matter involved. However, as an active-duty veteran and a current member of the US Army Reserve, I'd like to add my nickel to the discussion.

First, I'd like to say that I have no hard combat experience whatsoever. I was on active duty during Desert Shield/Storm, but I didn't get called on to go to Saudi. I am, however, an Infantry officer, so as a combat arms guy, I have a clue what's what in the military.

I've got little or no problem serving alongside women, so long as they can do the job. This may sound strange coming from a groundpounder like me, but that's just how I feel. Yes, there are some issues with upper-body strength, and those would have to be overcome on a person-by-person basis, but I feel that a woman who can meet the male physical standards and _wants_ to go combat arms should be given a chance at it.

All that being said, however, I have not yet met a woman who met both of those criteria. I have known some rough, tough women who could knock out more pushups than me. I once saw a female Signal NCO do 80 pushups during her PT test and then get up before the test was over. I asked her "why'd you get up when time hadn't been called yet, Sergeant?"

She said "Sir, I already had maxed out on the pushups, and I want to save energy to max out on the situps and run." And that's exactly what she did.

I'd certainly take that sergeant (or one like her) to war with me, if she volunteered. I have no doubt that she could hump (i.e. lift and load) shells into a 105 howitzer, build fortifications and drag wounded troops out of harm's way as well as a man.

But I have never heard a female officer, NCO or junior enlisted woman express a desire to go combat arms. Never.

I've known female medics, transporters, clerks and jerks. I've met female aviators, and that's one area where I do think women outstrip men. I'd be pleased as punch to know that a female Cobra or Apache pilot was coming to save our bacon if our position was about to be overrun. But I just haven't met females in uniform who _want_ to get into the combat arms.

Is it just me?

For all the heat I've seen on this thread, I have yet to see any light -- where are the women who WANT to go combat arms? Show them to me. Don't just show me women who want _other_ women to be able to get into the infantry. Show me women who want to get in the infantry THEMSELVES. I have never met one.

I also want to sound off on this "rights" issue that several people have raised. I don't want to come across as a "dinosaur," but the fact is that you have no "right" to serve in the military, let alone in the position you want. Within the standards set by the President and Congress, the military can be as choosy as its recruitment targets allow. You can volunteer, sure. You may even find a recruiter willing to sign you up. But if you're overweight, you may not get in (unless you can drop the weight). If you're diabetic, you won't get in (though some rare people who become diabetic while on active duty are retained). If you are or have ever been a member of an organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the US government, you may find it hard to get in or stay in.

But even if you do get in, you're not guaranteed the job you may want. There may be job requirements that you don't meet. The service you choose may not need people in the specialty you want. You don't automatically get the Army College Fund in all specialties. If you score poorly on the ASVAB, then you'll receive a very limited choice of jobs. If you are or have been one of those violent-overthrow people, then your job choices become VERY limited. All things are not equal.

Promotions certainly are not equal. Enlisted men in combat arms tend to get promoted faster because of higher turnover. Enlisted men and women who are medics, clerks and truck drivers tend to get promoted more slowly because turnover is slower. Is that discriminatory? Troops in combat arms tend to recieve more medals and other awards than troops in non-combat specialties because they get in harm's way more often. Is that discriminatory? Doesn't that infringe upon your rights?

When you get into the military, you give up some of your rights. You legally agree to accept certain infringements upon your rights. For example, as an officer, I cannot make derogatory statements about the President, whether I like it or not. If you don't like it, you can bring suit, but the services usually win such cases.

So for those of you who are arguing this matter from a "rights" perspective -- where's the beef? Granted, the military does not treat everyone equally. But military recruitment's objective is to get the best-suited people in uniform so that they can be utilized in an efficient manner. That objective does not lend itself well to the protection of individual rights. The people in the military give up some of their rights and privileges so that the rest of the country can enjoy those selfsame rights and privileges. What is not clear in that?

And for those of you who claim that women don't belong in combat, well, your argument may soon become moot. On the modern battlefield, the safe places in "the rear" are becoming less safe and secure. Wars are becoming increasingly fluid; sometimes with definable front lines, and sometimes not. Airborne doctrine, for example, does not presume that large drops (brigade-size and larger) result in a tight concentration of troops that can immediately be organized and sent against the enemy -- it presumes that those large drops result in a scattered, decentralized force (LGFs -- Little Groups of Fighters) that would then execute hit-and-run operations against the enemy. Gentlemen, if your wives or daughters spotted some enemy LGFs landing in the bushes, what would you have them do? Cower in fear or call the authorities and then whip out the rifle?



-- LTC Sal Monella, US Army Reserve (too.much@lawschool.org), June 04, 2000.


Uncle D-----

I objected to the premise that feminism and women's lib is destroying America, your crudeness in describing lesbians, and the attitude that when men have heard enough then women should be quiet.

I was amused that the women paid no attention and continued to discuss a topic of interest to them.

-- I'm (grinning@amused.com), June 04, 2000.


Wow  fascinating stuff, yall

Hey Unk

You wrote,

The best that you ladies can come up with is that "some" women "may" be able to hold their own against "some" men in front line combat units, and that any problems associated with allowing women to fight up front can be "trained" out of us males. That position shows an ignorance as to what the mission of the military is all about. I want the best and strongest army fighting on our side, not the army that is most sensitive to some women wanting to prove their manliness. 

Are you saying then, that (issues of distraction aside for the moment) you would be much more agreeable to having women serve on our front lines if instead of just wanting to prove their manliness, they actually wanted to fight to preserve our freedom? Further, what would your position be if there simply werent enough men to go around?

Debbie,

Hi  you raised the very valid issue of upper body strength differences. But Im trying to focus on the individuals abilities, which would of course include upper body strength. Would you agree that, if all else was roughly equal and there was one position left for a recruit, a female with greater upper body strength should be given preference over a male? If not, why not?

Mornin Cherri,

I had spoken of training for the men to counter any tendencies of distraction while on the front lines with women.

You replied that, among other things, that adding women would create yet another psychological conflict that the men would be better off without. I assume youre implying then, that training would be pretty much fruitless. Could you explain why? And, wouldnt even the possibilities of taking a bullet itself put pressure on the men to at least focus in the right direction?

Further, as I put the point to Unk, what would your position be if there simply werent enough men to go around?

You brought up other interesting points in your post, Cherri; although Im just focusing on these for now, Im open to anything if wouldnt mind restating the issue.

Im grinning @ amused,

Hello. I havent read this whole thread, so I wasnt aware that Unk made these comments. Unk, as well as many others, have made crude comments that Ive seen here; Im just trying to ignore them for now, because I dont have the time or energy to fight all of that as well as discuss the issues.

The term feminism is just too vague for me to respond to in any case; and I think there are rational as well as irrational aspects to it. I mean Id first want to come up with a mutually agreeable clear definition before Id be comfortable using that term in a discussion.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.


Well, I'd like to withdraw my questions to Unk and Cherri on "What would your position be if there simply weren't enough men to go around?" The reason is that I think that one's obvious in that it clearly wouldn't make any sense to lose a war rather than allow women to fight. I just posted it without thinking much about it, and didn't mean to insult y'all by its simplicity.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.

Sal,

Thanks for the interesting heads-up. Now if we can only hear from some guys (and gals) with recent combat experience.

Grinning,

"I was amused that the women paid no attention and continued to discuss a topic of interest to them."

This is precisely what Unc was referring to. The individuals to which it was directed aren't interesting in debating issues with facts. Their minds are made up and they don't want to be confused with any more facts that might run counter to their positions.

Be as amused as you like. Your attitude is symptomatic of the underlying problem.

This being said, I'm still disagreeing on this issue with several ladies that I like and frequently agree with on other issues. I haven't made your acquaintance other than on this thread, so have no measure on which to base your overall philosophy.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 04, 2000.


Eve,

You are one of the ladies who I hold in high regard on this forum. You have brought up an important issue about differing interpretations of the term "Feminism" and I think it would be an interesting topic to explore in another thread. As Gilda has alluded to, the need for female protest and action has changed over the years. The need to fight for equality of rights and opportunity was significant back in the Susan B. Anthony days, and still so back in the 50's and 60's. Today, I feel that what I perceive to be feminist attitudes are often counterproductive at both personal and societal levels, and also that they are unnecessary. But the heart of the matter, as you so correctly point out is each person's individual definition, and the need for a mutually agreed upon one prior to debate.

I personally like and am attracted to strong, independent women. However I have terminated several past relationships that might have blossomed into something more because I got tired of hearing the frequent jabs at men, and the person's general attitudes behind them.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 04, 2000.


A feminist is a man or woman who believes that gender/biology should not determine roles, vocation, responsibility etc. except in such cases where biology itself requires a specific gender (i.e. wet nurse, sperm donor)and which allows each human being -- as an individual -- to strive for and express freely his or her potential, unrestricted by the lottery of one's gender.

With that freedom comes responsibility, assessed by individual merit and performance, and not by the possession of specific genitals.

Most of us are blind to the many ways institutional sexism has colored our perceptions. Sexism is both subtle and blatant.

It is important to remember not all feminists are of a certain political or ideological persuasion -- there are pro-choice and pro- life feminists, liberals and conservatives, professionals and "stay- at-home" moms (and dads) who claim the label of feminist as defined above.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), June 04, 2000.


Flash:

Here are some snips from the link I provided:

"Boadicea, queen of the Iceni Tribe in Britain,led her people in revolt against the Roman Empire in A.D. 61.Her battle cry was "Death Over Slavery." (19:78)

Information on the Medieval period is more plentiful. Women were soldiers and commanders of entire armies. Women such as Eleanor of Aquitaine; Jane of Flanders; Agnes, Countess of Dunbar; Philippa of Hainault; Margaret of Anjou; Elizabeth I;Joan of Arc; Mary of Hungary; Joan Hacketter; Queen Margaret of Denmark; Catherine the Great; Isabella of Spain; and Christina of Spain are legend. A Danish female unit, commanded by a widow,Kenau Hasselaer, fought against the Spanish army in the 16th century with "great endurance and bravery at the siege of Haarlem." (19:79)

The 19th century produced a notable example of women warriors. King Gezo of Dahomey, West Africa, had 3 regiments of women, each numbering one thousand, all carefully screened for duty and required to fight to the death. Their record was heroic, but they were eventually defeated during fierce hand-to-hand combat by their enemies who were enraged when they discovered that the King's army was all women. (19:80)"

Those are a few examples of women in combat situations, but the link also includes the differences in training now experienced by women in the military.

"The most common complaint by the male cadets and midshipmen was the lowering of physical standards. The women could not keep up. That was not the only problem encountered. Other allowances were made for the women. Women were thought to need more privacy than men and so were issued shower curtains though men were not, and of course none of the women had their heads shaved. . . . The substitution of classes in karate and self- defense for classes in boxing and wrestling had more to do with what the academies thought becoming of women, than what physical risks the sports presented to them. It didn't seem to matter that the purpose of training men to box and wrestle was to develop physical courage and aggressiveness, neither of which was achieved by most of the alternatives offered to women. (15:70)

The WITA review group, addressing the other issue of physical capabilities, established physical strength requirements for each Military Occupation Specialty (MOS). The General Accounting Office (GAO) had also conducted a study in 1976 and recommended gender-free strength testing of potential recruits.WITA concurred, saying "The Army cannot be assured of accomplishing the ground combat mission if women are randomly accessed into positions with physically demanding tasks exceeding their capabilities." DoD, in 1981, repeated the recommendation,praising the Air Force for using similar tests. The test to be developed for determining strength and endurance was called MEPSCAT, Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test. It was never implemented, and a 1985 study by the Air Force dismissed WITA's findings on physical strength because, it said, there was no proof that those who lacked the strength to perform their assigned tasks actually degraded unit effectiveness. (15:122,129,134)"

If you'd read the entire link provided, Flash, I think you might just agree that women have traditionally fought [even in strange lands], but politics in the U.S. have prevented women from getting the same training as men, weeding out those without the physical strengths to qualify, and downright simply suggesting "This ain't for you, honey."

Sal:

Thanks for your review. Upper body strength isn't necessarily lacking in women. It's simply undeveloped. I have a daughter who can do at least 50 male pushups. My son can't do one. Since the women's program in the armed forces doesn't PREPARE them currently for combat, it comes as no surprise to me that they show reduced interest. You're absolutely correct on the military not being a "right", and young people I've seen apply have been shocked to learn they weren't met with what their parents suggested. Daughter #2's current boyfriend got into trouble with the law when he was 15. He's 19 now and wanted to join the Marines. He's spent the last two years working construction and worked out enough to become a professional trainer at a gym. The Marines turned him down.



-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.


Normally, you're definition of feminist is right on, IMO. This would define every female who posted on this thread, and most male, including Deedah.

Deedah, Cherri, Helen and I are expressing our opinions on why it isn't the best logical military tactic to let women fight in the ground troups, while Anita seems to be focusing on demonstrating that women indeed should not be confined to pre-determined roles based on their gender. I don't see a real disagreement here, only a paralell one. As Anita has said, we're still communicating right past each other.

-- (y@x.x), June 04, 2000.


Eve--the title of this thread was how women's lib was ruining America.

Normally--YES, Sexism is both subtle and blatant. It was the subtle kind I was trying to point out.

Flash--I was not amused that the ladies were not listening to the arguments. In fact, I thought they were listening. I was amused, however, that they paid no attention to Uncle D's "Yes dear" comment that was supposed to end the thread.

All female military units might be a good idea. But it might work better in a set up like the British regimental system. Otherwise the all female unit might wind up doing laundry only.

I think it is hurtful nonsense for to say that women have destroyed the American military forces.

-- I'm no longer (grinning@amused.com), June 04, 2000.


I'm no longer grinning,

You are an idiot, plain and simple. Nobody said the military has been ruined by females serving. Dumb-ass!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.


If you would agree that a woman's nature is to nourish and nurture, then would you also agree that a man's nature is to protect and cherish? Perhaps it is going against this nature that is confusing and deterring to a man. And when in the extreme stress of combat, they don't want to have to and shouldn't have to deal with this issue and confusion, because in doing so, may be distracted and lose their life in the process. I think that males have been "smacked on the nose with a newspaper" on this issue for so long, that their going to be a little hand-shy. And in the trenches is a bad place to have to deal with it.

Unk... A woman can't take Mike Tyson? I think you're wrong there. After flashing a little tit or using some psychological tactics, she could take him. She could definitely outsmart him. What we women lack in brute strength, we make up for in other ways =)

And Sal, great post by the way.

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), June 04, 2000.


Grinning,

You need to do some research and discover what real servicemen have to say about the morale issue and what it has been doing to our military readiness since the Clintons get elected. Their comments, mostly in the negative about the issue of women in combat roles would fill volumes. This is one of the points that Uncle Deedah and I have been trying to make throughout this thread. Go find out what is REALLY happening. Intellectualizing about it is just mental monkey-spanking!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 04, 2000.


Y,

"I don't see a real disagreement here, only a paralell one. As Anita has said, we're still communicating right past each other."

Perhaps you're right. But the issue that has gotten Unc and I so worked up is for real and we believe threatens our national security and therein our future. That apparently means more to us than to those who disagree with us on this thread.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 04, 2000.


Hi Oxy,

Thanks for weighing in on this thread. I've got to run and will check back later, but can already see how we need to get into the discussion of "what is Feminism?"

To me, modern feminism (post 70's) is about making women MORE THAN EQUAL through special programs, legislation, and privileges that give them a legal advantage over men. It may have been necessary in the 60's and 70's, but not anymore. The women I experience as feminists seem to always have some sort of chip on their shoulder and either a need to demean men or cry about how they're discriminated against. I suspect that this definition is quite a bit different than everyone else's, so let's explore it, maybe by starting a new thread, since this one is getting rather cumbersome to load.

Got to give Unc credit, though, for starting a stimulating discussion!

Best...

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 04, 2000.


Normally,

An excellent, clear definition of feminism, and one I agree with completely. Thanks.

Hi Flash,

Thanks for your kind words. And I agree with your disdain regarding government intervention with the "special rights" programs, regulations, etc.

I'm not grinning,

You said,

"Eve--the title of this thread was how women's lib was ruining America."

Yes, but since the entire opening argument consisted of "Hee hee, gotcha," I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you attempting to address something I wrote? If so, would you mind speaking to my points directly, instead of referring to the title of the thread? Thanks.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.


A fresh thread is now available. I agree........this one has simply gotten too big. Please let's address new posts to the new one.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ