What is wrong with this picture?

[mrniceguy148]

Not sure what you're tryign to imply here. That men are predators and women are prey? Or just stronger beings (be they male or female) are predators and weaker ones are prey? Predators, prey and survival usually involves eating another being or upholding one's territory. Also, if you're talking about aggression within a species, it tends to be male vs male or female vs female, not male vs female or female vs male. Survival typically means survival of the female, since males are expendable from the evolutionary point of view. Sorry if this might sound sexist, but the natural world always has and always will revolve around the female of the species - of any species. .

Hi Mulan,

I can see that we're getting allot of discussion over a post that I hadn't thought through very well. I can't blame you for being confused. I'll try to explain:

My post had nothing to with survival of the species. I was only refering to social interactions between people; mostly men and women. In a nutshell you hit the nail on the head when you said, "Or just stronger beings (be they male or female) are predators and weaker ones are prey?" However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the preditors are always physically stronger. Just more agressive. This is how the human race (especially guys) establishes a pecking order and this is what I call "the never ending pissing contrst".

However, many women don't even realize that a never ending pissing contest is even going on so, when they enter a male dominant field like the military or martial arts, they get frustrated and call this macho pushing and shoving something like "sexism" or "male chauvinism" when it's really just guys being guys and treating women just like one of the guys. These are the same bastards who pick proving fights with the guys, buy when a women enters the arena the guy will test her out by attacking her feminity. It's all just part of the game and we guys understand it for what it is. However, women just don't get it at all so they cry "sexism" and think they are being singled out and victimized in some way. Truthfully, the only sure way to stop all male bullying; or, as you might say -- "sexism" is to labotomize and castrate every guy on the planet! Understand, it's rare to find a guy who isn't a bully to some degree, and/or in some way. It's just nature's way. BTW, the never ending pissing contest hasen't exactly been a walk in the park for me either, and I hate bullies as much as anyone!

I found this line of yours very interesting:

"Survival typically means survival of the female, since males are expendable from the evolutionary point of view. Sorry if this might sound sexist, but the natural world always has and always will revolve around the female of the species - of any species."

If you're looking for the real reason why so many guys like me find the image of female soldiers, policewomen and fire fighters to be so revolting then you couldn't have said it any better than you did right here. The fact of the matter is that, on a primal level, most guys instinctivly see women as something to be protected and not used as cannon fodder. Maybe after many more years of feminist brainwashing and educational feminization then future generations of men will actually conquor this instinct. But for now, I have to believe that most guys are just holding their noses and laughing to themselves at all of this forced gender bending. Although few guys will ever have the balls to actually stick their necks out and tell you what I'm telling you publicly, especially our politicians. Understand, I'm not saying that we don't have some competent women in all these fields. We certainly do. However, all I'm saying is that society would be a healthier place if all these women were thrown out of their jobs and replaced by men. Why? Because we'll have no trouble at all finding men who can do the job much better. If the majority of men want an all boys club (and I think they do) then they should be allowed to have it in the highly male dominated fields like military, law enforcement .etc.,.. Ditto for women in highly female dominated occupations like nursing and teaching. My feelings here aren't "sexist" or "chauvinistic". That's just my gut instinct telling me that there's something really wrong with what's going on here!

I dunno, I don't see how chauvinism fits into this. If something is to be primal, it has to be universal, and chauvinism isn't - it varies in degree and type from culture to culture, and in the earliest cultures didn't exist at all. I think sexism and chauvinism has more in common with racism than any survival instincts. That is, fear and exaggeration of perceived differences. Cultures that emphasize male-female differences typically have more sexism..

I can see that you've been sitting in on way too many revisionist women's history classes. Are you telling me that the cavemen weren't; as you say "chauvinistic"? The fact is, any ancient society that wasn't "chauvinistic" could never have survived because the'd have been enslaved and'or slaughtered by their more agressive masculine neighbors. Where did you dig up this nonsense anyway?

OK, you lost me. Women bitching about what? And what pissing contest? You mean, like, competitiveness? I'm for equality... If women want to be firefighters, enter the combative military, compete in tournaments, or whatever else they want to do, they must meet the required standards - provided those standards are rational and actually relevant to the job (ie: no pulling insane numbers out of your ass just to keep women - and prolly a lot of men - out). I'm against all the crap about lowering physical standards to "accomodate" women. Be you woman or man, if you're not qualified for the job, you're not qualified for the job. Nothing law-of-the-jungle about it... just nobody's safety or efficiency needs to be compromised over this.

I answered most of this earlier. However, in the corporate world industry tries to hire the best applicant; that is, once they've filled their gender and race based hiring quotas. Therefore, in fields like firefighting for example, if the competition becomes so keen and the bar is raised so high that most people (and all women) cannot even compete -- then so be it. If I'm trapped in a burning building then "satisfactory" just isn't good enough when "excellence" was possible. Again, this "minium" or "rational and relevant standards" rubbish is just another well disguised gender bending feminist mind f**K! Ever hear of "doublespeak"?

Anyway, I hope that this clears up, what was origionally, a poorly thought out post.

Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

[Mulan]

Well, gosh, and I thought we were making real progress here! Ah well...

However, many women don't even realize that a never ending pissing contest is even going on so, when they enter a male dominant field like the military or martial arts, they get frustrated and call this macho pushing and shoving something like "sexism" or "male chauvinism" when it's really just guys being guys and treating women just like one of the guys. These are the same bastards who pick proving fights with the guys, buy when a women enters the arena the guy will test her out by attacking her feminity. It's all just part of the game and we guys understand it for what it is.

Wow... that's incredibly ignorant. Are you aware of the result of the first few women entering the Citadel? What happened to them wasn't any pissing contest or competitive bullying. They were downright attacked for their gender in ways no males have been. Because the male were not competing with who they perceived to be "one of the guys," they were competing with somebody who posed a threat to their very sense of identity, purpose, and self-worth as a male! Moreover, somebody who they have been brainwashed to think is worse than them and does not belong in a military academy (see a previous post on how "women" are equated with negativism and screwing up in military and sports training). This is so elementary I can't believe I even have to explain it.

If you're looking for the real reason why so many guys like me find the image of female soldiers, policewomen and fire fighters to be so revolting then you couldn't have said it any better than you did right here. The fact of the matter is that, on a primal level, most guys instinctivly see women as something to be protected and not used as cannon fodder.

Hmm... too bad for you, huh.....

All I'm saying is that society would be a healthier place if all these women were thrown out of their jobs and replaced by men. Why? Because we'll have no trouble at all finding men who can do the job much better. If the majority of men want an all boys club (and I think they do) then they should be allowed to have it in the highly male dominated fields like military, law enforcement .etc.,.. Ditto for women in highly female dominated occupations like nursing and teaching.

I gotta admit to being incredibly shocked and speechless at such sweeping statements, but instead of reverting to jibberish I shall try to reply as maturely as I can. If women are doing a good job in the military and law enforcement (and they are), let them stay there. If men are doing a good job at teaching and nursing (and they are), let them stay there. I think that about sums it up... yea......

My feelings here aren't "sexist" or "chauvinistic". That's just my gut instinct telling me that there's something really wrong with what's going on here!

No, dear, your feelings here are sexist and chauvinistic.

I can see that you've been sitting in on way too many revisionist women's history classes. Are you telling me that the cavemen weren't; as you say "chauvinistic"? The fact is, any ancient society that wasn't "chauvinistic" could never have survived because the'd have been enslaved and'or slaughtered by their more agressive masculine neighbors.

And obviously you haven't even sat in a basic anthropology class, let alone a revisionist one. There is no reason to assume that cavepeople mentality (who were still homo sapiens) and psychology differed to any significant extant from humans today. When I say "chauvinistic," I mean a mentality that antagonizes the sexes, exaggerates and fears the perceived differences between them. This typically prevents the sexes cooperating and working in harmony on a given task.

Anthropology teaches that the earliest stage of society is hunting and gathering, and so the earliest societies were hunting and gathering societies. Both ancient and modern hunting and gathering societies have been shown to have far more egalitarian relations between the sexes than pastoral, agricultural, and industrial societies, when the egalitarianism between the sexes deteriorates more and more with each stage. Oddly enough, life satisfaction also deteriorates with each stage. It is only in these later stages do gender roles become progressively more rigid, and increasing degrees of cultural complexities and formalities are piled on to perpetuate the culturally-perscribed norms.

So yes, in the earliest societies, there is a much stronger sense of equality between the sexes, and an acute awareness of and respect for the sexes' interdependence on each other for survival. The roles of men and women are also less differentiated in a hunting & gathering society, and it is here where you find the majority of female hunters, leaders, and warriors... as well as nurturing fathers. This did not stop them from defending themselves against outside aggression. I don't see how lack of chauvinism (as defined above) can do anything but promote a society's efficiency.

Again, this "minium" or "rational and relevant standards" rubbish is just another well disguised gender bending feminist mind f**K! Ever hear of "doublespeak"?

Do I even need to answer this? For your information, there is indeed such a thing as a minimum requirement - that is, a minimum requirement to perform a job as efficiently and as safely as the task at hand requires. I don't get what you're trying to imply... that only those that exceed the job requirements should be allowed to do it? Is there even such a thing? If you want people to perform a job better than they have to, then what's the point of the minimum requirements? Do you only want to keep the handful best of the best in a given field and have them sit on some remote mountain top for lesser skilled people to make pilgrimages and seek guidance from the Masters?

[mrniceguy148]

Well, gosh, and I thought we were making real progress here! Ah well...

Wow... that's incredibly ignorant. Are you aware of the result of the first few women entering the Citadel? What happened to them wasn't any pissing contest or competitive bullying. They were downright attacked for their gender in ways no males have been. Because the male were not competing with who they perceived to be "one of the guys," they were competing with somebody who posed a threat to their very sense of identity, purpose, and self-worth as a male! Moreover, somebody who they have been brainwashed to think is worse than them and does not belong in a military academy (see a previous post on how "women" are equated with negativism and screwing up in military and sports training). This is so elementary I can't believe I even have to explain it.

Hi Mulan,

I don't have time to tackle all of this right now, but I can't go to bed without at least commenting on this Citadel disaster:

The fact of the matter is that, since day one, freshman males at the Citadel have been brutally hazed and it was just accepted as a military right of passage. The guys just accepted the abuse and moved on and that's why you never heard anything about it. Since it was only guys who were being abused by older guys society didn't give a damn. However, when freshman women were hazed they went crying to the media and made a public stink (and a total mockary) of this once great and proud institution.

FYI, the reason why these women may have been attacked worse than some of the guys was because the upperclassmen were smart enough to know a cancer when they saw one and, like any good surgeon, they tried to remove it. These bitches were so arrogant that they didn't even want to get their heads shaved like all the guys were required to. How do you expect me to respect these women after they muscled their way into a place where they weren't wanted in the first place, and then they proceded to re-wright the riule book to suit their selfish whims? Sorry, my respect has to be earned not demanded. and these women all failed the test as far as I'm concerned!

Several weeks ago the History Channel did a special about the Ciadel and to the uninformed the program must have made that school look like some kind of girls club or something. It was absolutely insulting! There was this one scene where this women, with long golden locks tucked under her rediculous looking army cap, was actually telling this clean shaven guy that his sideburns were too long.. What's wrong with that picture? Huh?

Take care,
Mr. Niceguy

[Mulan]

FYI, the reason why these women may have been attacked worse than some of the guys was because the upperclassmen were smart enough to know a cancer when they saw one and, like any good surgeon, they tried to remove it. These bitches were so arrogant that they didn't even want to get their heads shaved like all the guys were required to. How do you expect me to respect these women after they muscled their way into a place where they weren't wanted in the first place, and then they proceded to re-wright the riule book to suit their selfish whims? Sorry, my respect has to be earned not demanded. and these women all failed the test as far as I'm concerned!

Keep on talking, you're only proving your own ignorance. Citadel was just one of countless examples of males reacting to females in a male-dominated field. You think they were being targeted for not wanting to cut their hair? Please. Hair, no hair; following same rules, not following same rules; same thing happens. First you say they were being treated like "one of the guys" but now you admit that they were being targeted because they "muscled their way into a place where they weren't wanted." Do you have any idea what it takes to be the on the frontlines of enacting social change? Do you know what kind of strength and mentality it requires? When the first African Americans "muscled their way into" predominantly Caucasian schools where they "weren't wanted in the first place," what they received wasn't competitive bullying or being treated like "one of the guys" either... it was hostile discrimination pure and simple. Sexism and racism are rooted in the same thing (fear and exaggeration of perceived differences) and manifest in the same way. The only difference is co-education of different races (in both schools and the military) is taken for granted now whereas co-education of males and females in the military isn't. Wait 50 years, and if Earth is still around, you'll see how silly your words will sound.

[gregimotis]

However, many women don't even realize that a never ending pissing contest is even going on so, when they enter a male dominant field like the military or martial arts, they get frustrated and call this macho pushing and shoving something like "sexism" or "male chauvinism" when it's really just guys being guys and treating women just like one of the guys.

The fact of the matter is that, since day one, freshman males at the Citadel have been brutally hazed and it was just accepted as a military right of passage. The guys just accepted the abuse and moved on and that's why you never heard anything about it. Since it was only guys who were being abused by older guys society didn't give a damn

Hi Mulan - I know I said I was leaving, but this has just gotten too interesting for my better judgement....

Regarding the above quotes: Although MNG148 is (perhaps) overmaking his point, its a point based in reality nonetheless. I'm going to try to paraphrase it because I think there is something important to the understanding of male psyche. (As an aside, sorry MNG if my phrasing it my own way looses some of your points).

Male society is largely about pecking order. It's especially obvious with boys in school - the blatant bullying and the 'wedgies' and the spitwads -all that stuff is about boys learning which other boys will fight and which boys can be pushed. The kids who fight tend to be let alone, while the boys who take the advice 'ignore it and it will go away' become victims - the bullies do go away, but not until they've trampled you down.
As boys get older, it may appear that they grow out of this stuff, when in fact we simply become better at it - Instead of petty assaults like towel snapping, boys move into petty threats and taunts. The game is the same, though, it's still people trying to figure out who they can dominate, and who they'd better leave alone.

In the case of military schools and things, MNG is spot on - Everything I've ever heard of those situations describes physical and mental brutality. Women get raped and abused in those situations not exactly because they are women, but because being more vicious than the next guy is rewarded in a 'Lord of the Flies' sort of way. (I'm not justifing it, I'm just describing the scenario)

As an adult, I can tell you it still goes on. Some men (many men) are still playing the bully games - petty insults and little turf infringments designed to push and see who pushes back and who doesn't.



To add a moral to this story - I think that teaching boys how to deal with this side of themselves is one of the things that men can do - but often don't - because they aren't there.

[gregimotis]

To add a moral to this story - I think that teaching boys how to deal with this side of themselves is one of the things that men can do - but often don't - because they aren't there.

Actually, I'm taking this back - Men DO teach boys how to deal with this - just not always the good men. Little jerks grow up to be big jerks, and teach thier kids the ways of jerkdom.

[Mulan]

Everything I've ever heard of those situations describes physical and mental brutality. Women get raped and abused in those situations not exactly because they are women, but because being more vicious than the next guy is rewarded in a 'Lord of the Flies' sort of way. (I'm not justifing it, I'm just describing the scenario)

While there's certainly teasing and beating up and other bullying going on in those schools, I would say rape goes a tad beyond competitive bullying. I think it's pretty obvious that under the circumstances (the men not wanting the women to be there), the men were rebelling against their sex in particular. Besides, if the bullying is to the extent some people describe, I don't see how the military can get anything done at all. The more women enter the military, the less they are targeted, and the more society and males at large come to see it as normal. The more women there are in the military, the more power they have. You could say this is due to changing policies, but the same antagonism and eventual acceptance happened when other "minorities" entered the military.

Since the military is no longer the domain of men, perhaps it calls for a revision of "men's" rules. A lot of the comments I'm hearing sound like "this is a man's world, and if women want to enter it, they have to follow men's rules!" That is not true, neither in the workforce nor the military. Women and men must meet the same standards (as relevant to a job) and follow the same rules (as relevant to a job), but these need not be "men's" rules - they become "human" rules. This is not a case of "if women want to be in the military, they'll just have to fit in," this is a huge social change and the "fitting in" goes both ways! As with any huge social change, things CHANGE, and the waves of that change ripple through every aspect of society until attitudes are reformed. It may look chaotic right now, but when all things are in place and the dust clears, we will have a much stronger, cooperative society and be utilizing 100% of its potential instead of half.

Also, I'm sick of being the only female replying to this damn thread. I was looking for a discussion where other females can maybe contribute their experiences with martial arts, not me vs the rest of the board. But I guess this board has a severe shortage of females, and I can see why.

[Tom Yum]

Huge difference in getting spanked by the fraternity paddle, going on scavenger hunts in the middle of the night, forced into doing keg stands and wrestling 2 topless hooters girls in a pool of KY-Jelly ( Spanky got beat...hahahahah!!) and...

bullying.

Stop the bullying; prevent the next Columbine.

[mrniceguy148]

Keep on talking, you're only proving your own ignorance. Citadel was just one of countless examples of males reacting to females in a male-dominated field. You think they were being targeted for not wanting to cut their hair? Please. Hair, no hair; following same rules, not following same rules; same thing happens..

Personally, I wear my hair a bit long but I do understand the important symbolism of a shaved head. Obviously you don't.

Short hair isn't a fassion statement. No, it's much more than that. Actually, in a military context it says to the world that the individual is willing to sacrafice his self interest and submit to the greater good. In the military this code is essential in battle. Therefore, when those women started complaining about having to get their heads shaved they, in effect, flipped off every guy in that institution; and they flipped off over 100 years of tried and true tradition, and then they proclaimed themselves, their feelings and their lives to be more valuable and more important than The Citadel and all the men who'd been there before them.

Guess what? Try pulling a stunt like that in allot of other non U.S. military settings and you could actually be shot for it It's no wonder they were hammered!

First you say they were being treated like "one of the guys" but now you admit that they were being targeted because they "muscled their way into a place where they weren't wanted." .

Yes they were being treated like one of the guys. However, any guy who can't measure up, or stand up for himself will always get bullied that much worse. The treatment of the women was no different. Had they been, say, geeks, nerds, crossdressers, or flaming homosexuals instead of women then the same thing would have happened. Anyone seen as a weak link in the chain would be an equal target.

Do you have any idea what it takes to be the on the frontlines of enacting social change? Do you know what kind of strength and mentality it requires?.

If I were to walk into a biker bar wearing a t-shirt that said "BIKERS ARE STUPID DIRT BAGS" and then you heard afterwards that a gang of bikers had taken me out back and beaten my brains in, then what would you think of me:

A. I was coragous for being the first try to make social change, or
B. I was a stupid a**hole who got his just deserts for being in the wrong place and saying the wrong things to the wrong people.

I hope you answered "B"? And that's the exact same thing that those women did when they joined the Citadel. They knowingly violeted the first law of self defense, which is to "avoid dangerous situations'. They swam with sharks. They got bitten; and I have no sympathy for anyone who shows that level of stupidity. Personally, I'm hoping that we hear many many more stories like Tail Hook. Driving them out seems to be our only hope of ever putting an end to this "women in the military" experiment once and for all. God knows, or leaders in Washington won't do it.......

Under normal circumstance, I wouldn't wish that kind of harm on anyone, but these stupid women are just asking for it.

When the first African Americans "muscled their way into" predominantly Caucasian schools where they "weren't wanted in the first place," what they received wasn't competitive bullying or being treated like "one of the guys" either... it was hostile discrimination pure and simple. Sexism and racism are rooted in the same thing (fear and exaggeration of perceived differences) and manifest in the same way. The only difference is co-education of different races (in both schools and the military) is taken for granted now whereas co-education of males and females in the military isn't. Wait 50 years, and if Earth is still around, you'll see how silly your words will sound.

The only difference between races is skin color and maybe some facial features. That stuff is unimportant. All races have an equal amount of good and bad men and women. Anyone who thinks differently is "prejudice". The treatment of the blacks in this country was an abomination. We've known since before the civil war that black men were great soldiers so Harry Trueman did the right thing by bringing blacks into the regular military. We're a better country today because of it.

What you call "sexism" I call "gender differences". Personally, if I need a bodyguard I'll hire a man (black or white) and if I need a secretary I'll hire a women (black or white). That's only one example of "gender differences". Oh that men could be left alone to be men and women would just go back to being women.........

FYI, this country may not even exist in it's present form 50 years from now. Thank's to instutionalized feminization, our nation is allready morally bankrupt and, if government predictions hold true, than by around 2025 we'll be financially bankrupt as well. The combination of moral and spiritual confusion combined with financial ruin will cause the democratic process to grind to a standstill. At that point we'll be forced to turn the reins of power over to a dictator. It's hard to explain, but take it on faith that your socialist "MR. Mom" style utopia is being built on quicksand.

[mrniceguy148]

It may look chaotic right now, but when all things are in place and the dust clears, we will have a much stronger, cooperative society and be utilizing 100% of its potential instead of half.

Hi Mulan,

This is just plane wrong. Obviously you weren't alive during the 1960's and 1970's, but I grew up in that eara and we lived much better then than we do now. Here's how it was:

Back then, in the neighborhood where I grew up and in most suburban arias in this country, the men worked and the women stayed home to raise their kids. What a novel concept! The fact is, we had more things living on one income than most famlies today have on two incomes. We had big houses, two cars, swimming pools, lavish vacations, color TV. etc.,.. Just like today, except on only one income and not two. Ever hear of wage slavery? We're living it now!

I can remember in around 1970 my father and I were watching some Sunday political round table discussion on TV and Gloria Steinum was going on about how great life would be once more women joined the work force. We'd have more money, dad wouldn't have to work so hard, he could spend more time with the kids, etc.,..You know, the usuial shit.... Yea! Gloria sure had all the answers!

Well, what happened?

It seems like the sudden influx of cheep labor has destroyed the wage scale in this country. It's basic economics really. When the supply of labor goes up then the pay goes down. Also, because we had become a two income society, the social contract between business and labor became a thing of the past (i.e.,..employers stopped feeling obligated to pay a living wage for full-time work).

Well, with two people working there must have been some extra money floating around, right? If so then where did it all go?

Well, we know where it didn't go!

The money didn't go into savings, that's for sure. Not into retirement funds either. Maybe into the kids college fund? No chance!

Actually, all that extra money went into bidding up the price of housing and automobiles. People had more cash then they were accustomed to having so they just pissed it away by bidding up the price of houses and cars. Think about it. Today's car and housing prices would be impossible to afford if famlies were still living on only one income. Add in a few bad trade deals by the federal govermnent and it's easy to see why are standard of living is lower now than it was in 1970 when most famlies were still living on one income.

Actually, America never needed large amounts of women in the work force to begin with. Before Gloria Steinum came along industry would just fill any labor shortage by bringing in immigrants. Now, in an age where industry is capable of producing more goods and services with less manpower, we have an over-crowded labor force (thanks to the working women) resulting in depressed real wages! Welcome to McJobs! It's just so liberating!

Anyway, this "women in the military experiment" is doomed to fail in much the same way, but for it's own reasons.

Anyone ready yet for the three income family plan? LOL !!

Take care,

Mr Niceguy

[Mulan]

Short hair isn't a fassion statement...txt...in a military context it says to the world that the individual is willing to sacrafice his self interest and submit to the greater good...txt...Therefore, when those women started complaining about having to get their heads shaved they, in effect, flipped off every guy in that institution; and they flipped off over 100 years of tried and true tradition, and then they proclaimed themselves, their feelings and their lives to be more valuable and more important than The Citadel and all the men who'd been there before them.

If the current rules say hair need sto be shaved, everybody should shave their hair. If the rules change and hair no longer needs to be shaved, nobody should shave their hair. As the last sentence of my paragraph explained... whether women shave their hair does not change the antagonism with which they are treated.

And that's the exact same thing that those women did when they joined the Citadel. They knowingly violeted the first law of self defense, which is to "avoid dangerous situations'. They swam with sharks. They got bitten; and I have no sympathy for anyone who shows that level of stupidity. Personally, I'm hoping that we hear many many more stories like Tail Hook. Driving them out seems to be our only hope of ever putting an end to this "women in the military" experiment once and for all.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself? First you say they wouldn't be treated differently from "one of the guys" if they just cut their hair, then you say they were treated like "one of the guys" and singled out as a "weak link," then you admit that you feel they shouldn't be there in the first place and should be driven out. If you're going to say that, and going to admit the guys also thought that, then don't try to make excuses and say they were genuinely treated like "one of the guys."

What kind of social change can walking into a biker bar with an insulting t-shirt strive to make, and how is it relevant in this case? Women aren't entering the military to insult men. They are there to be treated as equals and that just can't happen as long as the men adamantly believe they shouldn't be there. It also can't happen as long as women rebel against existing rules instead of working to change them if there is really a need for it - and do so with the cooperation of the men. This isn't an "experiment," this is reality and has been for thousands of years.

Oh that men could be left alone to be men and women would just go back to being women.........

FYI, this country may not even exist in it's present form 50 years from now. Thank's to instutionalized feminization, our nation is allready morally bankrupt and, if government predictions hold true, than by around 2025 we'll be financially bankrupt as well. The combination of moral and spiritual confusion combined with financial ruin will cause the democratic process to grind to a standstill. At that point we'll be forced to turn the reins of power over to a dictator. It's hard to explain, but take it on faith that your socialist "MR. Mom" style utopia is being built on quicksand.

...WTF?? You're Christian, aren't you... and you've even been taught how to use the word "socialist" in a derisive manner out of context!! I'm impressed.....

If so, is anything other than Christianty considered "spiritual confusion" by you? There is no such thing as "being a man" and "being a woman" as far as I can see. People are people, and people do whatever their heart desires so long as they are able to. Both men and women are doing very well in fields that fall outside those perscribed to them by gender stereotypes (sorry, "gender differences" ).

And hmm "morally bankrupt," how so? Do you mean women in the workforce? Heightening rates of divorce? Is the conflict caused by some women wanting to get more out of life and some men not being able to handle their wives questioning their authority feminazi to you? Is the idea of a father who loves and spends time with his children not manly enough for you? Is the prospect of a homosexual excelling as a military general threatening to you? I do not see what is morally bankrupt about striving for equality in all fields regardless of race, gender, sexual prefference, or religion. Perhaps the only ones being "morally bankrupt" are the ones enganged in a Lord-of-the-Flies deathmatch to eliminate potential competition before it gets strong enough to push back.

Are you suggesting that minorities (right now basically women and homosexuals) asserting their power and fighting for equality is going to cause the breakdown of democracy, economy, society, the country... the world... the galaxy... the universe?? Sure, tell that to the countries that are more egalitarian than the US and don't give a damn what somebody's sexual orientation is. Also don't forget to check up on their economy, their relatively nonexistant crime rate, and the overall maturity of its citizens. Your apocalyptic scenario is ludicrous enough to rival the ramblings of wild-eyed doomsayers on street corners. (Unless, of course, the End Times are indeed upon us... and then I shall rejoice into the night until the nuclear-bomb/asteroid/comet/space-dragon/aliens/angry-lightning-bolt-of-God hits)

[mrniceguy148]

If the current rules say hair need sto be shaved, everybody should shave their hair. If the rules change and hair no longer needs to be shaved, nobody should shave their hair. As the last sentence of my paragraph explained... whether women shave their hair does not change the antagonism with which they are treated.

Why do you keep contradicting yourself? First you say they wouldn't be treated differently from "one of the guys" if they just cut their hair, then you say they were treated like "one of the guys" and singled out as a "weak link," then you admit that you feel they shouldn't be there in the first place and should be driven out. If you're going to say that, and going to admit the guys also thought that, then don't try to make excuses and say they were genuinely treated like "one of the guys."

What kind of social change can walking into a biker bar with an insulting t-shirt strive to make, and how is it relevant in this case? Women aren't entering the military to insult men. They are there to be treated as equals and that just can't happen as long as the men adamantly believe they shouldn't be there. It also can't happen as long as women rebel against existing rules instead of working to change them if there is really a need for it - and do so with the cooperation of the men. This isn't an "experiment," this is reality and has been for thousands of years.


...WTF?? You're Christian, aren't you... and you've even been taught how to use the word "socialist" in a derisive manner out of context!! I'm impressed.....

If so, is anything other than Christianty considered "spiritual confusion" by you? There is no such thing as "being a man" and "being a woman" as far as I can see. People are people, and people do whatever their heart desires so long as they are able to. Both men and women are doing very well in fields that fall outside those perscribed to them by gender stereotypes (sorry, "gender differences" ).

And hmm "morally bankrupt," how so? Do you mean women in the workforce? Heightening rates of divorce? Is the conflict caused by some women wanting to get more out of life and some men not being able to handle their wives questioning their authority feminazi to you? Is the idea of a father who loves and spends time with his children not manly enough for you? Is the prospect of a homosexual excelling as a military general threatening to you? I do not see what is morally bankrupt about striving for equality in all fields regardless of race, gender, sexual prefference, or religion. Perhaps the only ones being "morally bankrupt" are the ones enganged in a Lord-of-the-Flies deathmatch to eliminate potential competition before it gets strong enough to push back.

Are you suggesting that minorities (right now basically women and homosexuals) asserting their power and fighting for equality is going to cause the breakdown of democracy, economy, society, the country... the world... the galaxy... the universe?? Sure, tell that to the countries that are more egalitarian than the US and don't give a damn what somebody's sexual orientation is. Also don't forget to check up on their economy, their relatively nonexistant crime rate, and the overall maturity of its citizens. Your apocalyptic scenario is ludicrous enough to rival the ramblings of wild-eyed doomsayers on street corners. (Unless, of course, the End Times are indeed upon us... and then I shall rejoice into the night until the nuclear-bomb/asteroid/comet/space-dragon/aliens/angry-lightning-bolt-of-God hits)

Hi Mulan,

You've either totally misunderstood or deliberately twisted the meaning of everything that I was trying to say so I won't try to explain it all again. It would be pointless anyway. All that I can say is this: As the years go by remember what I've said here and see what happens. It's not my fault that we lived in a better, and more prosperous, society 30 or 40 years ago than we live in today. I'm just calling it like I see it. BTW, where were are all these great women warriors from all those high and mighty enlightened sociialist nations now that we could really use some help in Iraq? The French fems were a real big help weren't they?

However, the one thing that I cannot let go unchallenged is your insinuation that I'm some kind of bigot because I refuse to be intimidated into buying into your brand warped socialism. I assure you, I'm not a bigot at all. I'm a pragmatist and if I thought for a second that any of your hair-brained gender-bending socialist schemes had any chance at all of improving the quality of life in our flondering nation then I'd surely say so.

When I was younger I had three close friends who were gay and now I have a gay couple living several doors down. They are, in fact, nice people so I'm not a gay basher by any streach of the imagination. I probably live close to more minority groups than you see in a year and I do have some friends who are black, so I assure you, I'm not a racist either. Also, I've been happily married since 1985 to a women who rejects everything that you've been preaching here. I also have a mother and two sisters who I care allot about. So, no! I'm not a women hater either! I'm just a pragmatist.........

Even though I know I'm right about all of this, the fact of the matter is your side is winning without a contest. Unfortunately, women are organized politically and men are not. Honestly, the way I see it, we men were too damned lazy to close our ranks when we had the chance and now we'll just have to accept the consequences of capitulation. Hey, for our laziness we probably deserve every degradation that's forthcoming. I'm sure you'll have your self-serving feminist utopia because the opposition is just too scared to defend themselves. I hope you like what you're probably going to get! I sure won't!

Excuse me, but I'm late for my labotomy..........

Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

[Tom Yum]

Even though I know I'm right about all of this, the fact of the matter is your side is winning without a contest. Unfortunately, women are organized politically and men are not. Honestly, the way I see it, we men were too damned lazy to close our ranks when we had the chance and now we'll just have to accept the consequences of capitulation. Hey, for our laziness we probably deserve every degradation that's forthcoming. I'm sure you'll have your self-serving feminist utopia because the opposition is just too scared to defend themselves. I hope you like what you're probably going to get! I sure won't!

Excuse me, but I'm late for my labotomy..........

Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

CONVINCED????????????????

At this point Sherwinc is supposed to twist this argument into the superiority of kung fu......

[Bjjexpertise@be]

I am sherwinc. I would just like to point out that kung-fu is superior to women. The reason being is because women lack superior kicking skills such as this:

hand2hand, you're stupid. What kind of name is hand to hand? More like band2band, loser stfu.
Tom yum you're dumb. Now i'm going to type out 4 paragraphs why using words that have more than three syllables to make what i'm typing actually seem intelligent and logical. Tom yum? what kind of name is tom yum? was your mother hungry when she named you? tom yummy? hahaha stfu.
{bunch of tiny contradicting text that is supposed to fill up the rest of the page}


Oh, btw I would just like to remind tom yum that his victory against me in the restaurant the other day was due to the fact he cheated. If you look at the following picture(Tom on left, me on right).

One can see that Tom yum was clearly losing so he had to cheat and take out nunchuks. Boy did i have the crap beaten out of me then.

One more thing, the fact that i was huddled in the corner crying while you beat the crap out of me was only because i was trying to generate sympathy from the crowd. STFU.
Kungfu is superior to women PERIOD.

[Mulan]

Back then, in the neighborhood where I grew up and in most suburban arias in this country, the men worked and the women stayed home to raise their kids. What a novel concept! The fact is, we had more things living on one income than most famlies today have on two incomes.

Hey, I know how to solve this problem! How about the men stay home and take care of the kids and the women go out and work? Back to one-income family for ya! Wouldn't that be swell?

I can remember in around 1970 my father and I were watching some Sunday political round table discussion on TV and Gloria Steinum was going on about how great life would be once more women joined the work force. We'd have more money, dad wouldn't have to work so hard, he could spend more time with the kids, etc.,..You know, the usuial shit.... Yea! Gloria sure had all the answers!

I never heard of Gloria and I really don't care what she had to say. I am not for "women" working, I'm for any human being that wants to being able to make the most out of their life. If you want to go back to one-income families, why do you assume it is the woman that should stay home? Why can't partners decide amongst themselves who should stay home? And what if you don't have a partner, what if you want to be independent, or what if cookiecutter Brady Bunch families aren't your cup of tea? That's why I don't approach two or one income families from the angle of having more money, that's such a capitalist, consumerist concept. If things like big houses, cars, color TVs, and pools is how you measure happiness and life satisfaction I feel sorry for you. Some people have individual dreams and want something meaningful in life - surely you understand that is a desire that both men and women are capable of. I myself would rather know I'm free to be whatever I want (as long as I'm able) instead of live in some kind of ignorant bliss. Be it men in the workforce, women in the workforce, gays in the workforce, non-Caucasians in the workforce - none of it has failed, and is improving every day.

You've either totally misunderstood or deliberately twisted the meaning of everything that I was trying to say so I won't try to explain it all again.

Oh, ok, I guess there's many ways to interpret quotes like "All I'm saying is that society would be a healthier place if all these women were thrown out of their jobs and replaced by men. Why? Because we'll have no trouble at all finding men who can do the job much better." and "Oh that men could be left alone to be men and women would just go back to being women........." and "Driving them out seems to be our only hope of ever putting an end to this "women in the military" experiment once and for all.", etc...

All that I can say is this: As the years go by remember what I've said here and see what happens. It's not my fault that we lived in a better, and more prosperous, society 30 or 40 years ago than we live in today.

Who's "we," exactly? The women who were restricted to being housewives, secretaries, teachers, and nurses? The other minorities who could hardly land a job, let alone a decent one? Does "better" and "more prosperous" mean the blind wastefulness of natural resources that we're paying for now? I guess you must mean "Caucasian males" by "we," cause, hate to break it to ya, but everybody else wasn't too happy. It's not just women that have infiltrated decent jobs in the past years, it's also every other minority, male and female. Combine that with other nations becoming more prosperous, and poorer countries asserting their rights and refusing to be exploited, and you've got a hell lot more to blame for the oppression of the Caucasian male than just "women." The world has simply become a more complicated place. What's wrong? Can't handle good ol' capitalist competition?

BTW, where were are all these great women warriors from all those high and mighty enlightened sociialist nations now that we could really use some help in Iraq? The French fems were a real big help weren't they?

I believe it has something to do with a certain president that I shall not name and the rest of the world hating USA right now.

No he's pointing out that in many sitituations women, homosexuals, and other minorities have more rights than the majorities. That it has passed the point of them trying to gain equality now its hitting almost the complete oppsite of the way things used to be. Thats not equalilty its just inequality and changing the parties.

Actually, no, you're pointing that out, and I agree with you. I am for a fully equal opportunity society where anybody can aspire to be anything they are capable of regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion... meet the same standards, follow the same rules, and cooperate without prejudice. What he's pointing out is very different. Oh it starts as an equality rant, yet in weird and twisted ways degenerates back into judging groups instead of individuals and wishing everybdoy would just stick to their perscribed stereotype (ie: women should be secretaries, teachers... men should be soldiers, cops; or sometimes even women should be housewives, men should be breadwinners). He also throws in various jabs at feminism (the actual definition of which is women equal to males, or women being treated as human beings... not women superior to males) and socialism (why...?) that have nothing to do with the conversation. And tops it off with sweeping apocalyptic statements that don't hold water when compared to the smooth egalitarian progression of other countries.

CONVINCED????????????????

At this point Sherwinc is supposed to twist this argument into the superiority of kung fu......

Kung Fu r0xx0rz j00!! pWnt!1!!