In The News Today...

Quote: rxwine

There's a stat that 400-700 women secretly fought in the Civil War dressed as men. The Civil War wasn't a walk in the park!

So you're buying the idea that these women were combat soldiers? I guess I can't prove otherwise.

Quote:

If women want to fight and qualify to do so in a particular profession, I don't see a big deal.

As a generalization, I think we know women don't really want to be in combat. Exceptions even have to be pretty far and few between. I can picture women liking the military, wanting to serve, even feeling that they should not totally avoid being in harm's way. This is all different.

Quote:

Not sure why anyone gets more outraged when women are beat and raped by enemies as they are also beat and raped at home on occasion.

*sigh*

Quote:

They certainly might suffer beatings and rapes by an occupying force, be better off fighting in any case.

Yep, those teenage girls in firefights are going to be awesome!

Quote:

I'm also pretty sure women who might become grunts are aware of the risks as applies to them. If they're willing to accept them, and meet qualifications, no reason to stand in their way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/02/after-historic-graduation-army-removes-all-restrictions-on-women-attending-ranger-school/

Navy Seals next?

PS: it is not true that Israeli women were ever in combat groups. Apparently recently that may change too, I'm sure we know little about it. But I don't want anybody trotting out the idea that the Israelis always did this. In fact I would be quite happy to hear that we are learning from the Israeli model. Fat chance.

Quote: rxwine

Not sure why anyone gets more outraged when women are beat and raped by enemies as they are also beat and raped at home on occasion. They certainly might suffer beatings and rapes by an occupying force, be better off fighting in any case.

I don't get it, you are saying people are not outraged when women are beaten and raped in the USA?

I do understand why this does not bother liberals. It goes back to the feminization of society and disdain for manliness.

Men who act like men understand that there are some things you just do not let or make women do. Could be as simple as killing a spider, which for some reason women just can be terrified of. Could just be lifting the heavy item. I changed a water cooler jug once, three or more women thanked me later, could not believe I got so much credit for something so easy. Or it might be just taking care of things you know better, say taking the car to the shop. And if could just be being her back-up. Back to cars, I tell women who ask about car shopping to take a guy along. He need not talk beyond, "morning, lovely day!" but his being there shows the salesman someone is making sure she gets a better deal.

Flipside, women who act like women know there are things they need to take care of to support the man above. I'm a guy so not as many examples I can cite here, but she takes care of details. While he is out fixing that car or taking it to the shop, she takes care of the homestead. He is busy unloading the delivery at the office so she takes the calls he can't while he is away from his desk.

You can call this "sexist" all you like, but it evolved for a reason. It is called nature. Funny thing, the same period we have tried to ignore it in the USA is the same period the divorce rate skyrocketed. Just saying.......

Now, liberals believe in a gender-free society. Men and women identical and interchangeable. Societal differences caused by some male-macho plan to dominate women. Belief goes that we must stamp out these differences for the good of all.

Sorry, but I believe in being manly. I don't want women in combat. I don't want them captured. I know where this will lead, and I don't see it going well.

What [I bet] a fly on the wall would have heard at the discussions about how to get women in combat units:

"OK, what have we learned from our experience with getting more women as firefighters? Consensus: do not let it slip out how we lowered the standards so they could pass the physical tests. That was a real mistake, everybody still talks about that. So this time all that is to be shut up. "

What the fly on the wall heard when some un-PC comment was made about how even today women are only 3.8% of firefighters [see link] and [though I can't easily prove this] a lot of even that small percentage have transferred into the less physically demanding roles at the stations:



and then went of to say "so why are we bothering with this?"



http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/the-fire-service/administration/firefighting-occupations-by-women-and-race

My thought is, the combat positions aren't going to be overrun by women volunteering and training for them anyway. The more rigorous specialized positions even less because of the physical requirements.

But if some women are capable and willing, let them compete, or get rejected.

Quote: rxwine

My thought is, the combat positions aren't going to be overrun by women volunteering and training for them anyway. The more rigorous specialized positions even less because of the physical requirements.

But if some women are capable and willing, let them compete, or get rejected.

The problem is, it never works out this way. Letting them in turns into quotas, bad publicity, and lawsuits. So standards get lowered. Sorry, but a small % of women in an all-male combat unit is bad news. Men don't send women off to war.

Quote: rxwine

But if some women are capable and willing, let them compete, or get rejected.

I think eventually the Marines will have to "comply" and modify things so the women compete better. It happened with fire-fighters. If you place your social-engineering fantasies at higher importance than maintaining good, necessary requirements for firefighters, then those same people will feel the same way about the military. We are talking about politicians here.

Quote: wikipedia article

In 1994 the Department of Defense officially banned women from serving in combat, but, on January 24, 2013, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed the military's ban on women serving in combat.

One question that comes up for me is how exactly does it happen that some particular Secretary of Defense gets to make sweeping changes by decree? Are we no longer a democracy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat

serf versus man of the world.

I believe the gypsy greeting is Are You a Man of the World or a Serf?

they had their wagons to flee oppression and flee conscription and learned various trades to make their employment temporary.

Quote: odiousgambit

I think eventually the Marines will have to "comply" and modify things so the women compete better. It happened with fire-fighters. If you place your social-engineering fantasies at higher importance than maintaining good, necessary requirements for firefighters, then those same people will feel the same way about the military. We are talking about politicians here.

I don't think the political pressure from supporters is that great. No great crowds are going to march on Washington if rules aren't bent to allow women in combat positions.

It will either pass evaluation or it won't.

Office Depot Defends Employees’ Refusal To Make Copies Of Anti-Abortion ‘Hate Material’

IMHO, Office Depot needs to pay this person damages and sign a consent decree promising not to discriminate again based on current law. Unless the material is illegal (e.g. :child porn) then under current law they are really not allowed to refuse any print job.

Quote: AZDuffman

Office Depot Defends Employees’ Refusal To Make Copies Of Anti-Abortion ‘Hate Material’

IMHO, Office Depot needs to pay this person damages and sign a consent decree promising not to discriminate again based on current law. Unless the material is illegal (e.g. :child porn) then under current law they are really not allowed to refuse any print job.

In this case office depot is wrong
Kim Davis will be wrong if she interferes with the issuing of Marriage certs Monday.