Explaining women in combat arms

Look at her professional profile on LinkedIn. The woman couldn't have gotten as far as she did if it weren't for the feminists who fought to get those opportunities for women. She lives feminism; yet she has a double standard for bashing liberals and other feminists who helped her by paving the way over the past few decades.

I see this in a lot of conservative women and they either don't have any self-awareness or they're masters at self-deception. The fourth paragraph in her article above makes me want to throw up. "Feminism fails women." This spiteful biotch needs to quit her job and get back into the kitchen; there are plenty of talented women standing in line to take her place in the professional world.

I read an extremely good article a while back where an English feminist was railing against her US counterparts because of their propensity to claim that they won the war and that no other factors or people came into the equation. I will try to dig it out. It does piss me off somewhat how everything is ascribed to left leaning feminists as if they were the only ones that advanced the cause. I find that to be self serving and a serious rewriting of history. For instance, it's funny that Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir are never considered to have been in the vanguard of women's rights because they are considered right wing hence non eligible.
 
LOL. I just think its so funny because I knew what Tom was before anyone because I know the codes these fuckers use. And I am just laughing because it's allllll coming out in the wash now. And that is some dirty laundry huh?
 
LOL. I just think its so funny because I knew what Tom was before anyone because I know the codes these fuckers use. And I am just laughing because it's allllll coming out in the wash now. And that is some dirty laundry huh?

Fool me once...
 
Fool me once...

As you claim that you have me on ignore now I suppose you won't see this.

Don't ask a feminist about this, especially here. They are so well-indoctrinated and delusional that you'll never get an objective answer. They also have zero understanding of men's rights because they will never believe women are anything other than victims.

"Sommers argues that the feminist movement, especially in the field of education, has moved away from the original goals of "equity" feminism (with which Sommers identifies) toward what she calls "gender feminism."

"Gender feminists in academia are rewriting history through their own ideological lens, failing to expose their students to the great literature and art of the Western tradition, and often encouraging a mushy, therapeutic atmosphere rather than teaching students how to write and think analytically."

-Christina Hoff Sommers

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/briefly.j…
 
Last edited:
Here is an article from her website, can't speak for others but I would agree with much of it.

Mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century Feminism has taught us that women don’t need men, that we can do anything men can do from business to close combat, that taking on the worst behavior of promiscuous men is desirable, and that we can avoid the physical and emotional consequences that result. Chivalry is long since dead: Feminism declared it the relic of an oppressive patriarchal society rather than what it was: a standard that held women up in order to protect them. And they have convinced themselves that any differences between the sexes exist because they have been artificially imposed by men. Meanwhile men have been emasculated and fathers relegated to mere sperm donors.

Has anyone noticed all the heroines in our films and television shows in recent years? No longer are chivalrous men protecting vulnerable women. From Alias to La Femme Nikita to any female-centric film you can name, the women are portrayed as fighting machines (with guns), often rescuing their male counterparts. You know these films. Michelle Rodriguez plays the same exact cardboard badass in so many of them. They take down fighting man after fighting man. But this is all fiction – take it from a female black belt and Iraq War veteran. And don’t get me started on that twig LeeLee Sobieski on NYC22 playing a veteran who can take down street thugs. The reality is that even Rhonda Rousey isn’t put in the ring with male fighters.
If women could do the same things men can, there wouldn’t be separate standards for them in police work, firefighting, and the military, or as is true in some cases, lower standards for both sexes that women can pass. Most women can’t wield the fire hose, carry a 200-lb man off the battlefield, or take down a male criminal. The last example was proved just recently when a female cop was overpowered by a criminal who had been taken into custody. He stole her gun and three cops were shot.

Yes, some women are stronger than some men, but they are never stronger than strong men, and a woman without a weapon is no match for a man who wants to do her harm, even if she knows how to fight. I earned that black belt, I became a Marine, I went to the combat zone. But I also got cancer, and what happens when you can no longer physically fight? What if you don’t want to fight? How many women or moms, married or not, have time to train to become proficient fighters to be ready for that one random time the criminal comes at them in the parking lot? You need to be able to own a weapon for self-defense if you choose. You need to be able to nullify the threat before it comes down to hand-to-hand combat.

No matter how much the Feminists rail, and no matter how many times Hollywood portrays heroic fighting women, women are the weaker sex. This doesn’t mean lesser, it just means physically weaker and that’s a fact no amount of affirmative action or double standards can change. Leave it to hypocritical liberals and feminists to ignore scientific reality in favor of the brave new world they want to force into existence. You would think that girl-power philosophy would extend to empowering women to protect ourselves with any weapon available, especially after teaching us for so long that we don’t need men. But no, the hypocrisy is ubiquitous. Women don’t need men and they don’t need weapons either. Feminism thus fails women.

Existing and new gun control laws coupled with Feminist ideals just means that we all have to become fighters, whether we want to or not. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle until a strong man decides to take advantage of her and/or her children. For 50 years now we’ve been taught that government will fill that void, but of course, the police usually come only come after a crime has been committed. And now the cop might be some chick who made it on a double standard who gets overpowered by the criminal in your home. Without a strong man to provide for and protect her, she not only must be a bread-winner, she must be a black belt – unless she can arm herself for protection. Guns are the real equalizer between the sexes.

http://politicalanimalblog.com/2013/01/14/between-feminism-and-gun-control-women-are-screwed/
You watch too much tv!!
But, you are getting the most out of your TV licence fee!!
Has it hit £500. A year yet!

TV LICENCE!!
 
Here is an article from her website, can't speak for others but I would agree with much of it.

Mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century Feminism has taught us that women don’t need men, that we can do anything men can do from business to close combat, that taking on the worst behavior of promiscuous men is desirable, and that we can avoid the physical and emotional consequences that result. Chivalry is long since dead: Feminism declared it the relic of an oppressive patriarchal society rather than what it was: a standard that held women up in order to protect them. And they have convinced themselves that any differences between the sexes exist because they have been artificially imposed by men. Meanwhile men have been emasculated and fathers relegated to mere sperm donors.

Has anyone noticed all the heroines in our films and television shows in recent years? No longer are chivalrous men protecting vulnerable women. From Alias to La Femme Nikita to any female-centric film you can name, the women are portrayed as fighting machines (with guns), often rescuing their male counterparts. You know these films. Michelle Rodriguez plays the same exact cardboard badass in so many of them. They take down fighting man after fighting man. But this is all fiction – take it from a female black belt and Iraq War veteran. And don’t get me started on that twig LeeLee Sobieski on NYC22 playing a veteran who can take down street thugs. The reality is that even Rhonda Rousey isn’t put in the ring with male fighters.
If women could do the same things men can, there wouldn’t be separate standards for them in police work, firefighting, and the military, or as is true in some cases, lower standards for both sexes that women can pass. Most women can’t wield the fire hose, carry a 200-lb man off the battlefield, or take down a male criminal. The last example was proved just recently when a female cop was overpowered by a criminal who had been taken into custody. He stole her gun and three cops were shot.

Yes, some women are stronger than some men, but they are never stronger than strong men, and a woman without a weapon is no match for a man who wants to do her harm, even if she knows how to fight. I earned that black belt, I became a Marine, I went to the combat zone. But I also got cancer, and what happens when you can no longer physically fight? What if you don’t want to fight? How many women or moms, married or not, have time to train to become proficient fighters to be ready for that one random time the criminal comes at them in the parking lot? You need to be able to own a weapon for self-defense if you choose. You need to be able to nullify the threat before it comes down to hand-to-hand combat.

No matter how much the Feminists rail, and no matter how many times Hollywood portrays heroic fighting women, women are the weaker sex. This doesn’t mean lesser, it just means physically weaker and that’s a fact no amount of affirmative action or double standards can change. Leave it to hypocritical liberals and feminists to ignore scientific reality in favor of the brave new world they want to force into existence. You would think that girl-power philosophy would extend to empowering women to protect ourselves with any weapon available, especially after teaching us for so long that we don’t need men. But no, the hypocrisy is ubiquitous. Women don’t need men and they don’t need weapons either. Feminism thus fails women.

Existing and new gun control laws coupled with Feminist ideals just means that we all have to become fighters, whether we want to or not. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle until a strong man decides to take advantage of her and/or her children. For 50 years now we’ve been taught that government will fill that void, but of course, the police usually come only come after a crime has been committed. And now the cop might be some chick who made it on a double standard who gets overpowered by the criminal in your home. Without a strong man to provide for and protect her, she not only must be a bread-winner, she must be a black belt – unless she can arm herself for protection. Guns are the real equalizer between the sexes.

http://politicalanimalblog.com/2013/01/14/between-feminism-and-gun-control-women-are-screwed/

As I said before, facts often flies in the face of right wing ideology. FYI:

Map: Which countries allow women in front-line combat roles?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tries-allow-women-in-front-line-combat-roles/
 
Back
Top