|
|
|
|
|
| | Were women better off 50 years ago?Page 19 of 21 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) |
Thanks for implying I am ugly. That comment about smashing my modeling face in actually happened to me. I don't think I am ugly, but you should have seen me when I got beat up. I don't think you understand that men don't beat you up because of your looks, they do it because they are nuts.
First, I am sorry for anyone who has suffered from physical abuse. I really am. They have my deepest sympathies. That includes you.
But I wasn't talking about abuse was I?
The topic of the thread is - "Were women better off 50 years ago?"
The reality is right here right now, if a woman is being treated badly in America, including women in this thread, odds are it's because society deems them physically unattractive on the average and not their gender.
In some ways, good looking women get treated great. They get a lot of benefits and options and opportunities that many others cannot get. They pick up some problems too that don't happen to the norm, but overall I think there are a lot of pluses.
Why do people think the concept of hate is universal to only one specific thing? Someone might treat you like crap because you are a woman. Or it could be because you are too short. Or too fat. Or too skinny. Or too tall. Or your hair color. Or you race. Or your personality. Or your job.
Good looking people have an easier time in most job interviews. Good looking people have an easier time getting certain kinds of jobs ( sales, dealing with the public, etc) So when women talk about having more job opportunities, sure across the board, the POTENTIAL for more opportunity is there. But there are still some very basic human issues that make that a case by case basis.
Women in this society are judged by their youth and beauty. That sucks for you ladies, but that's how the world works. Or did you simply ignore the billion dollar industry that caters to women to help them to primp this thing or curl that thing or darken this thing or mask that thing. They are also judged by what kind of status the man they can get to commit to them has. Women who marry doctors are often treated better and seen with more social esteem than women who marry janitors. Men in this society are judged by their careers and how much money they have/make. That sucks too. But it's how it works. So it's fair to you women, rich men often get treated BETTER than poor men in our society. A poor guy might have more overall POTENTIAL for opportunity than 50 years ago, but the basic set up hasn't changed all that much.
Most women want to dodge the core issues involved. And I don't blame them. It's easy to talk about spousal abuse and voting and jobs and politics and big changes in history. But the reality is when you walk in the mall on a sunny Saturday afternoon, people are going to treat you better or worse as a woman based on how you look. Sadly most women will never accept this because most women think they are far more attractive than men find them and more attractive than what society finds them on a baseline.
If a guy is asked by a woman, "Do you think I am pretty?" What is he gonna say? "Do I look pretty in this dress?" What do you think he is gonna say? "Do I look fat in this?" What do you think his typical response will be? Men are socialized and taught that we should placate women when it comes to their looks, no matter how fat, how ugly, how old, how haggard, or how busted she is because most women flip their lids if they are told that they are anything less than beautiful or pretty. If a woman asks another woman? Well women are competitive and socialized to "Be Nice" and say sweet things. No woman will say, "Wow, you are fat and your skin looks like total crap" They will say, "You have such pretty eyes" Right, pretty eyes on someone who is fat and who has skin that looks like crap. It's just most women won't hear that second part from other women. So of course I don't expect most women to really understand how others perceive their level of beauty in the world.
Most people in life are physically unattractive against socially widespread baselines. I'm sure someone will trump the "everyone likes something different" bullshit. OK OK, but the range of that usually isn't very far. Most people don't come up to snuff, that includes men and yes that also includes women.
Men still control most of the jobs, most of the purse strings, most of the power base, most of the keys and gateways and access to certain privileges and opportunities in life period. And they will give more of those things to pretty women than they will to ugly women. I'm sorry but you just need to go outside and look at how the world really works, in pure observation, to see what I'm talking about in application.
I know it must suck for you ladies, to know that who you are as a person doesn't matter versus what you look like on the outside. Well how do you think men feel when they get asked what they do for a living by women and have many women react with such disdain if its not a high powered or high paying profession?
Maybe some of you ladies are under this false impression that who you are as a person matters to society. It might mean a great deal to the people you love, your friends and family and those you hold close, but to society it means nothing.
Pretty women often have it better period. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 9:44:25 AM | ^^^^^^^^^^So what I am reading here is that women shouldnt be allowed to be in combat because men are incapable of using logic in the battlefield? Because really that is what you are saying. That men aparently are dumb creatures, that cant get past their "me man" base mentality. Interesting. So it isnt the fact that women arent smart enough, possess the right skills or are capable of doing the job, its because men cant deal with it. i thought you were supposed to be the more logical of the sexes. Or is that only when it serves you?
And in regards to your post prior to this one, you are essentially saying the same thing, that men cannot move forward, so we women should just suck it up and stay wherever you men say we should stay because its too much for your brains to handle. Or in your case, its because the good book says it should be that way. I am always amazed at how much gets laid at the feet of women , the decline of society, no less. It is womens fault that teenage preganancy is high? It is womens fault that there is violence in the world? It is womens fault that the economy is in the toilet? Our fault that jails are full? STD's are rampant? Wow, no wonder you want us to take such a restricted role, you are terrified of us! We apparently hold all the power on the planet and you men are just too dumb and incapable to control your surrounding or have any impact on what happens around you. I wasnt aware I had such power!
Oh, and by the way, I will definetely trade in having a man walk on the traffic side of the street so I can earn enough money to survive. You can keep your roses and your self delusions that I need protecting from the big, bad world out there anymore than you do if that is what I have to trade to be able to make my dreams and desires happen. You will never hear me complaining that no-one opened a car door for me. I dont happen to think that i need to have my car door opened, I am more than capable of doing it myself.
| |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 9:46:28 AM | aside from one female who "claims" to be an Ex-Marine
I am a former Marine, not "ex" - thank you.
And while I think you meant it as a complement in the context, why on earth would a woman "claim" to have done what I did for 6 years, and not have actually done it.
My former profession isn't exactly admired (as a woman, as a man, it's highly respected) in many circles.
I've actually had men not want to date me simply because of this fact.
Please don't disrespect my service (or anyone else's).
"More than 155,000 female troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. And more than 70 of those women have died. . . . Those deaths exceed the number of military women who died in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War combined."
No shit, really? 70+ women died in the service of our country. The number is higher than previous wars because there are more women serving our country. It's simple math.
And John Pickens argument is a sad look into the misogynistic mindset. One person's religious beliefs is not justification to deny equal rights. I should sit back and let a man defend me because his God says so? Do me a favor, if you believe this, take the FOWARD foxhole. I sure as hell don't want you behind me.... you might run away when the firing starts, or accidentally shoot me instead of the enemy.
Women are no less capable of doing this job than men are. Women have been defending this nation since 1776. But we were doing it in different roles. Look at the statistics from the Civil War. Rose O'Neal Greenhow (confederate spy) is just one example. Women have fought in every war in modern history. We just did it without the benefit of uniforms, training, or proper weaponry. When a war comes to your front door, you fight back.
Women are no less patriotic than men. And there are many countries who have had women in their militaries for generations. Somehow the US is bass-akwards in the thinking on this issue, and I just don't understand it.
God doesn't have shit to do with it... that type of thinking is what starts these damned wars to begin with. Please leave your religious believes out of my right to serve my country.
We used to say the same thing about the black population. Sheesh.
| |
|
| |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 10:02:52 AM |
Maybe some of you ladies are under this false impression that who you are as a person matters to society. It might mean a great deal to the people you love, your friends and family and those you hold close, but to society it means nothing.
Most of your posts are about the importance of physical attraction in life so it didn't surprise me to go to your profile and find that you are 26 years old and expressing values (or rather lack of them) that are quite typical for young males who are still in the first levels of their development into manhood. You're so caught up in the physical stuff that you think everyone else is as well.
No one person, male or female, young or old, good-looking or ugly, means anything to society because society does not have a heart or a conscience. Society is a mass collection of haves and have-nots that is currently very concerned about far greater issues than looks. For you to say that women don't matter is for you to ignore that men don't matter either....
You need to work on developing your perceptions and insight. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 10:11:36 AM | um...
why would you imply that I haven't read literature on this subject?
you have no idea what my education, or life experience is, except for "claim" that I am a US Marine.
Argue your point, but I won't assume you are a misogynistic a$$ if you won't assume that just because I don't agree with you I am not educated on this particular aspect of the topic.
and thank you Grizzelda.... that was sort of my point. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 10:18:11 AM | | ^^^^^^^^^^ I believe his comments were directed at me. I still stand by what I said, I have read this article when it first came out back in 07 and the fact still remains, it isnt about women not having the ability to do the job, its about men who cant handle women in combat because of their issues and their preconcieved ideas of what roles men and women should have. That is what the McLeans article said and what the other article says as well. Perhaps you should re read it...... | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 10:37:13 AM | grizzelda,
i agree with you. (and I'll take the punch for ya, if you like, cuz, well... I'm a Marine, and we do that... ~grin~)
it IS about preconceived gender roles.
but it is also about many men (and more women than I care to admit) believing that we are not strong enough to take on these roles. I served with many men who's physical strength was no more or less than my own... and yet the issue still came up.
I was the best marksman in my squadron, and had no problems keeping the pace on a forced march (with that full pack). And my Marines respected me and followed my lead (as they should, since I was their NCOIC) but there were Marines that still believed I didn't "belong" in a combat situation because I was female. (still trying to sort out why the p3nis is important for that role, I always thought it was my ability to get the damned job done)
The ability to "lift bombs" or "control an aircraft" being strictly able to be accomplished by men presupposes that all soldiers/sailors/flyboys/Marines are tall men who are built like brick sh1thouses. They are not. The military population is as physically diverse as the population. And we all have to pass certain physical requirements to even BE on active duty. My brother couldn't meet the physical requirements for the Marine Corps, but I could. Does that make him LESS of a man, or me more of one? I think not.
Women have served in support roles, behind the lines, for centuries. But I learned quickly that the enemy doesn't give a damn where the line is. In fact, it is tactically/strategically important to take OUT those support functions. Which actually puts those support functions at higher risk, if we do not provide the military men/women who serve in those roles with the necessary training (and when I was AD, we didn't in all cases, thank the gods for General Al Grey, "every Marine is a rifleman")
They say an army travels on its belly. It's a true statement. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 10:49:07 AM | ^^^^^^^^^^You know what, You are so busy shooting your mouth off about how "bad" women are, and blaming women for every ill on the planet, you cant even see whats in front of you. Show me where I have ever said that men are bad, show me where I ever said that I deserve chivalry, show me and where most of the women on this thread have ever said that they want anything more than the right to decide their own path in life and not have it dictated by someone else or by some book. Show me where I said that my rights as a woman trump yours as a man. YOU CANT! So take all YOUR bullshit articles and raging women hating crap and stuff it pal. The vast majority of women just want to live their lives on their own terms, nothing more, nothing less, pretty much the same as most men.
Thanks for the offer Sydney, but I can take a punch pretty good too!
I had enough of the good old boys network in the 80's in a reserves unit. Not comparing you reg force service to reserves, but the thought process is and was the same. Topped both classes, top 3 for markmanship, was number one in fieldcraft, map and compass and NBCW training, but hey I was a woman, the only thing I was allowed to do was push paper and drive truck. Kinda sad when half the men on my course couldnt even triangulate a friggin topographical map, but I had boobs, so I was automatically incapable of leading a section even when I was the only one in my section that could get us where we needed to be | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:01:09 AM |
What's your point...this is not about you!We'll see how safe you feel on the street when you remove all the male police officers that risk their lives everyday to at least give you some level of comfort...
It's not only the police.
It's practically eveything that men invent , build and repair. You name it , men made it.
If you look around where ever you are right now , everything you see was 95 % man made .
It's a masculine trait to push the limits and to constantly compete with each other and therefore to invent/develop/ improve things . Men tend to be more agressive which explains their creativity , but that also has it's down sides . (conflicts)
One researcher has speculated that if it was up to women only , we would still be living in grass huts and eating bugs. lol
And yet feminists b*tch about an imaginary "wage gap" that is present because men tend to work harder , longer and at tougher jobs.
Women tend to see the world from a very ego-centric view , they don't know who does what and how much they completely need men in very real and practical terms .
One woman does some drywall or fixes her taps and she thinks she's independent . lol
...others are strictly hanging on to their old destructive beliefs to make things worse by continuing to promote hatred without ever achieving any equality whatsoever and like one of my female friends who works for a small new women's group called "Real Women" said..."Men are not the enemy...it's women in our own ranks".
I would say that the real problem is some men in the very top of the power structure.
To understand feminism , you have to understand socialism/communism . There are men who are mega rich and mega powerful who are bent on controlling society . They have been working at their plan for a very long time now . A big part of that plan is to tear down the family and to weaken society and to bring in ever increasing big government . (socialism)
Feminists are just being their "useful idiots"
| |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:16:05 AM | I'm curious, and would really like some further discourse on this.
You said:
And are women/men really better off today...is society better because of what the radicals helped to create-teen-age pregnancies are rampant...jails are over-crowded...divorce is extremely high...drug/alcohol use is out of control...crime is now part of our permanent culture...we have new problems such as Lesbian gangs attacking their own gender in big cities...incidence rates of STD's haven't improved...parents jockeying for power in court rooms with lawyers at the expense of innocent kids who will become a new generation of dysfunctional individuals...no understanding of what LOVE really is anymore or respect for one another...and all this in one way or another can all be related to the break-up of traditional families where people are running back to religion scared in hope of finding salvation to the point couples can't even inter-act with each other and it's difficult to find a happy one...so tell me...why is it better...because of higher percentages for women in certain fields in the work force that would have come anyway through the natural progression of time at the expense of destroying all unity and our future as a nation?"
How did the feminist movement break up the traditional family? Somehow I thought (on a personal level) my "traditional family's" demise (and the demise of my OWN family) had more to do with my father's desire/ my desire to be married to someone else...
And being that I was born in 1970, I have only been part of the modern struggle for equality - which has more to do with being able to live my life as I choose regardless of my gender, not in spite or because of gender.
And then you said:
We'll see how safe you feel on the street when you remove all the male police officers that risk their lives everyday to at least give you some level of comfort...bottom line...I wonder how it would be with radical feminists running the show who are basically cowards for what they preach...
The police officers in my town are about 60/40 men to women, so on any given call, its the girls club protecting my interests as a citizen, as much as the boys, so I'm not sure what the point is here? She should be thankful there are male police officers? I'm thankful for ANY police officer, being as we have a major need for more of them.
Which "radical feminists" would be running the show, and what, exactly, are "they" preaching?
Everyone in this country is entitled to an opinion. It's the principle I served for. And we elect our officials, they are not appointed, so its unlikely that a "radical" anything will be elected, unless that's what the people of a certain populace desire... so if there exist certain "radical" elements, so be it. That's the great thing about this country. I am grateful that I live in a time where I can (for the most part) choose my path - and I will argue for, and defend, any person's right to their own path. At this point however, I'll take any viable alternative to "show running" than what we have now. Cuz at the moment, the way the show's being currently run, isn't to my liking. (and yes, I'm actively doing something about it) Is the devil you know REALLY better than the devil you don't?
Still not understanding how women's rights (or anyone else's rights) are a direct cause to the crap we are facing in society.
Criminals are criminals
STD spread is caused by a lack of responsibility
its tough to find a good relationship because we have become more selective as a society (ie. its not a requirement for survival, and the definition of "good" and "happy" have changed over time)
parental gridlock is a direct result of our generally litigious society (can we blame that on too many lawyers needing work?)
As our society evolves, we face new challenges, we can't take rights away in the hopes that going back to where we were will fix it. If where we were was the right place to be, there never would have been a fight/movement/interest in changing things to begin with.
Otherwise, we'd still all be British. | |
|
ndulj
| | Joined: 5/27/2007
Msg: 462 | |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:26:29 AM | Men and women are inherently different. They are hardwired differently. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses.
For example, women have better peripheral vision and a more acute sense of smell. Neither of which have to do with having boobs. Did you ever wonder why mom saw everything you did and dad didn't? These are but two of the many differences that are hardwired into each of us.
What radical feminism sought to do, more than anything, is to try to negate those differences. The only way to do that was to ignore them. (Note I said RADICAL FEMINISM) Basic biology can not be ignored.
It is the men and women that recognize these differences and celebrate it and use it that will finally bring some kind of harmony to this debate. Those, interestingly enough, are also the couples that succeed.
Anyone in a leadership position knows to place their assets (people) to play off their strengths. Why is that so damn hard to understand in real life.
Women are inherently the nurturer of our species. In that they need the support system that men offer.
Men are inherently the hunter gatherers of our species. To succeed at that they need the support of the women of the tribe.
Yes, each of us are capable of existing on our own, but that is not the way nature intended it to be.
Nothing much has changed since our species began EXCEPT how society has handled it. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:27:10 AM | Women tend to see the world from a very ego-centric view , they don't know who does what and how much they completely need men in very real and practical terms .
Please take a daily note of how many women you cross paths with that do something for you, or made something you use.
We don't want to be completely independent from men, we just want to do what you do, because we want to. Just like you can do what we do, because you want to.
A difference in physiology does not NECESSARILY a difference in ABILITY make.
I wanna be able to play in the same sandbox, by the same rules, because I am a citizen of this country - because I have the inalienable right to do so.
That's like saying you can't be a nurse (a traditionally female job) because you weren't born a girl!
A PERSON made the things I use, created the systems I live in... that PERSON happened to be a man. I want to be able to be that PERSON because of my skills, abilities, passions and desires... not because of a chromosome that designates my sexual reproductive system.
Women are inherently the nurturer of our species. In that they need the support system that men offer.
Men are inherently the hunter gatherers of our species. To succeed at that they need the support of the women of the tribe.
The only problem with this generalization is that it is based on the supposition of fact that every woman, and every man, WANTS those roles.
I hire based on the skills and personality of the person, not the DNA. (I won't use gender, because of my above statement - gender is a ROLE, and can change, its not an indicator of DNA)
We, globally, need the support system of the society. As a society. No matter who does what job. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:33:15 AM |
A PERSON made the things I use, created the systems I live in... that PERSON happened to be a man.
It didn't "just happen" to be a man . There is a reason it was a man.
... not because of a chromosome that designates my sexual reproductive system.
It was a man because of that chromosome.
A difference in physiology does not NECESSARILY a difference in ABILITY make.
Sorry , to burst your bubble , but ...
The evidence of all of the world throughout history would indicate that it certainly does.
We have different abilities , so what ? That's good .....Viva la difference.
It is supposed to be a symbiotic relationship.
I wanna be able to play in the same sandbox, by the same rules, because I am a citizen of this country - because I have the inalienable right to do so.
Men can't treat women the same as they treat other men . Men can't be as competitive with women as they are with other men . That's a good thing because it would be mayhem if men treated women like they treat other men .Women would very quickly be conquered.
Human nature hardwired men to be less aggressive towards women , so that men and women could live in a happy productive symbiotic relationship , and feminism seems to be trying turn that upside down.
| |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:46:52 AM | It didn't "just happen" to be a man . There is a reason it was man.
The matriarchal societies of the world and world history might beg to differ.
As might also the creators of the x-ray, the disposable cell phone, the windshield wiper, non-reflective glass, White-out....
BUT - Men also created war.
So, bully for you. (but thanks for the job... I needed it)
When PEOPLE change their mindsets from "DNA specific" abilities to "Person" specific abilities, we might get somewhere. This mindset does disservice to every man, or woman, who undertakes a non-traditional role in society.
Until then, I'll stick to my philosophies, and enjoy the freedoms my part in undertaking "non-traditional" roles have given us. (ALL of us)
That's a good thing because it would be mayhem if men treated women like they treat other men .Women would very quickly be conquered.
Welcome to mayhem... that's exactly what we've been trying to STOP. (or maybe, just maybe, if women, globally, were able to pursue their lives as they chose, with the same limitations as men, well... we might conquer THEM.) ~giggle~
It isn't about taking over, sir. It's about living your life as you see fit.
I'd like for you to have that right as well. Be a (fill in traditionally female role).
I don't care, and it doesn't threaten me.
But apparently it threatens you.
Some evolve faster than others, I guess.
| |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:49:34 AM |
The matriarchal societies of the world and world history might beg to differ.
As might also the creators of the x-ray, the disposable cell phone, the windshield wiper, non-reflective glass, White-out....
Feminist garbage . Matriarchal societies are a "women's studies" fantasy. The other examples are the same.
Do some research .
BUT - Men also created war.
Yes , and as a result of that aggressive nature , they created practically everything else.
BTW ...feminism is a sort of man made war , it's called the culture war and feminists are being used by mega-powerful men for political purposes .
It isn't about taking over, sir.
I can't recall a feminist ever wanting to work together , mam .
I have only seen man-bashing , selfishness and demands for impossible and unnatural total equality of outcome .
When PEOPLE change their mindsets from "DNA specific" abilities to "Person" specific abilities, we might get somewhere.
When people use rationality and science instead of politics and emotion , we WILL get somewhere.
I don't care, and it doesn't threaten me.
But apparently it threatens you.
Some evolve faster than others, I guess.
I think we all have interest in having a better world. I don't know what world you live in ,but , I think it's generally accepted that things aren't all peachy socially in society..
You are using the old and tired feminist line that any man that has a problem with the unilateral meglomanic feminist agenda , must be "threatened" That's not productive.
| |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:55:00 AM | that thing is used as the bible for feminism by such groups as NOW. i know this because they have said so in the feminist magazine MS.
kenny | |
|
| |
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:09:50 PM | Hmmmmm
While Grizz and Syd buddy up on the battle field... oh wait... did either of them actually see combat??
Hmmm not so sure that you, Ms Sempre Fi, or you Grizz, could handle carrying someone back from the front, who was incapable of moving themselves. Talk about combat related issues all you want. There is a simple fact of brute strength. It may take two of you... vs just one man, to carry someone to the rear. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:12:32 PM |
Feminist garbage . Matriarchal societies are a "women's studies" fantasy. The other examples are the same.
Do some research .
I have, thanks.
maybe I should be more specific - matrifocal is the term most commonly used in the field - but then, our written history is dominated by PEOPLE who think along the same lines as you do, so they wouldn't even think to consider that anything other than a Y chromosome might have been "running the show".
For many Y chromosome dominant folks, (and the X chromosome people who agree with them) its about the power over others.
For those of us who believe otherwise, its about ability and desire - to live a free life of your own choosing.
I don't necessarily need power, I need freedom of choice.
I simply do not wanted to be limited in my choices (or limit anyone else) because your chromosome, and history says it should be (that negates free will)
It isn't men vs. women, unless you make it so.
And it's only "feminist garbage" because you don't agree, and do not want to lose the power you think you have.
Just because it is a certain way, doesn't mean its RIGHT. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:20:58 PM |
It isn't men vs. women, unless you make it so.
And it's only "feminist garbage" because you don't agree, and do not want to lose the power you think you have.
It's only gabage because it is untrue.
Nobody has power , men did not have power , "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" The billionaire man that owns a bank has to serve his wife and kids in many ways .
You have to serve somebody....
It can be your employer/corporation for money or you can serve an army to do the bidding of a neocon global strategy , or you can serve your kids and husband for happiness .
It's all up to you , but you will serve .
We all do. | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:25:41 PM |
Please take a daily note of how many women you cross paths with that do something for you, or made something you use. Please take a daily note, every time you see a skyscraper, ride a train or subway, bring your trash can in from the curb, flush the toilet.... think of the men that have done the job and/or are doing the job. You like to talk big, but I still dont see the same representation of women, "statistically" in garbage collection or sewage.
We don't want to be completely independent from men, we just want to do what you do, because we want to. Just like you can do what we do, because you want to. Again, you do NOT want to do what we do. You want to be in direct competition with men at the top of the ladder. If you cant be at the top, then you fall back on "traditional values" and its the mans job to take the trash out, its the mans job to snake the commode....
A difference in physiology does not NECESSARILY a difference in ABILITY make. Oh please. Thats why there are a different set of PT standards for women. right???
I wanna be able to play in the same sandbox, by the same rules, because I am a citizen of this country - because I have the inalienable right to do so. So then play by the same rules, but dont cry, b!tch and moan when you cant keep up. (PT Standards... remember??)
That's like saying you can't be a nurse (a traditionally female job) because you weren't born a girl! Oh really... I know plenty of male nurses. Moot point.
A PERSON made the things I use, created the systems I live in... that PERSON happened to be a man. And you seem to have done rather well for yourself. All things considered, that being the lowering of the bar so you can make it. And dont start complaining, you know its been done. (PT Standards)
I want to be able to be that PERSON because of my skills, abilities, passions and desires... not because of a chromosome that designates my sexual reproductive system. Then step up to the plate, you seem hell bent on saying you're as good as a man, can do everything a man can do.... but to a different set of standards???
Please explain and enlighten me on that..... | |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:27:57 PM |
did either of them actually see combat??
I have.
Thanks.
dude, you can disagree with me, but there is NO reason to insult me, or any other service member for doing their job.
and whether Grizzelda did or didn't is most likely a matter of chance, or the time she was in service, like my service was. (I didn't JOIN in a time of war, but I was AD when the BS started)
My ex-H DIDN'T see combat, I did.
Fluke of the rotation and the particular unit served in, and a very (thankfully) short war.
Every serviceman/woman who didn't serve in a combat zone, still served. It doesn't make their job/level of service/dedication/ability to make it happen any less. Plenty of us have given our lives in NON combat zone related situations - are their deaths LESS of a sacrifice?
I was just the unlucky one.
(and thankful to have survived relatively unscathed, when several of my friends did not)
You don't know who I am, or what I handled.
Just as I don't know anything about you.
To get back on point....
the freedom of choice of all women, globally, has improved in the last 50 years.
But this conversation has shown me we STILL have a long way to go.
We should not have to fight THIS hard, or be ridiculed for our choices, simply because of a societal believe that its "not our place".
I'd defend your a$$ in a firefight DD, (and your right to believe I don't belong there) because you are a fellow HUMAN BEING, not because you possess certain characteristics of one.
You are welcome for my service, defending your right to your opinion on a public forum.
Then step up to the plate, you seem hell bent on saying you're as good as a man, can do everything a man can do.... but to a different set of standards???
I didn't set the standards. I complied with them.
And I regularly completed the PFT to the standards set for my male Marines, because I was the only female in the shop.
I (and every other female on this planet) am/are as "good" as any man, as a baseline. It totally depends on skills, abilities, desire, education, and OPPORTUNITY.
I want to compete on a level playing field in my chosen expertise, which starts with the OPPORTUNITY to compete. I want you to have the choice to be a "stay at home dad" without someone looking at you funny or calling you a "pu$$y" or a "wimp". A man chooses to be an interior designer, of course he MUST be gay. A woman chooses to be a Marine/CEO/bricklayer she MUST be a Feminazi lesbian.
Those characteristics/personality traits are simply completely irrelevant to their ability to DO THE JOB. And most likely not TRUE.
I have stepped up, I prove myself every day in my actions. I treat PEOPLE as people, irrespective of their chomosomes. I hire gender neutral, and I promote based on ability. I teach my daughter and son they can be WHATEVER they want, based on their ability, drive, and desire. One shouldn't have opportunity the other does not because one is female and the other male.
| |
|
| Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:31:28 PM | While Grizz and Syd buddy up on the battle field... oh wait... did either of them actually see combat??
No of course not, there wasnt any wars going on at the time that needed fighting, and even if I wanted to, I wasnt allowed. There are also plenty of men that were in the forces who never saw combat in both countries, does that lessen their commitment or make what they did or were prepared to do any less? There are plenty of men today that are in the service and plenty of them will never see combat either, does that mean they are less committed or that their contribution is cheapened? Or are they bullshitting too, like you are implying here? But I will be sure to pass that along to my ex who is currently a serving member in the forces, in a combat trade, and who has been over in the Middle East more times than I can remember, who has lost friends and co-workers in non combat deaths or have had career and life altering injuries, that you think their sacrifice and dedication is less because they died while trying to support the combat troops and give them the best chance to stay safe. I am sure he will be glad to hear your thoughts on their deaths and whether or not they are as important as the troops on the ground.
Or perhaps you can call Capt Nicola Goddard's family and tell her that what she contributed and died for was less than her fellow male soldiers. HMMMM? | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Page
19
of
21 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
|
|
Home
login 