A Mans World?

The ridiculous thing is that it is even used as a standard. One must be a soldier and fight for their country specifically in the military (regardless of war) to be considered as taking on or shouldering an amount of responsibility that determines equal rights before the law? That is completely and utterly asinine. Think about it. Is it ever said about asthmatic men? Flat footed men? Men that got a deferment for whatever reason? Of course not. it is said strictly and solely in regards to women - nevermind the fact that women were actively restricted from serving in the military and nevermind the fact that women serve in the military now.

Not only is it so ridiculously male centric - let's be real, how many women run around being aggressive in comparison to men - it's utterly illogical. It elevates war, aggression and fighting to the gold standard.

Well, my taxes pay these soldier's wages. But somehow I do not deserve equal protection and rights before the law because I have never - and will never (as the vast majority of men by the way) - be in the military.

Break down how that is logical. It isn't. It's a sexist standard that's been repeated so often it has the weight of time as authority - regardless of any real standing in logical reality. It's like the "Luke I am your father" bit. Never said, but everyone quotes it. It's not true, but everyone thinks it is.

________________________________________

Fact: Equality is right.

Fact: Rights have no qualifiers.
________________________________________

Question: Is a willingness to fight for (defend) one's country used as a standard (qualifier) for equality?
________________________________________

Proposition: In order to be equal standards must be met.

Proposition: As members of a society we have duties and privileges.

Proposition: As members of a society we have rights.

Fact: Rights and privileges are different.

Question: What is the difference between a right and a privilege.
________________________________________

Question: Should there be standards that must be met in order to qualify a person for equality.

Question: are rights given and can they be taken away?
________________________________________



Fact: There is a difference between that which is and that which should be.

Fact: There are different opinions as to that which should be.

Fact: There are different opinions as to that which is.
________________________________________

LC: The ridiculous thing is that [ fighting for (i.e., defending) ones country] is even used as a standard [that must be met in order to qualify for equal rights in the society in which one lives.

LC: One must be a soldier and fight for their country specifically in the military (regardless of war) to be considered as taking on or shouldering an amount of responsibility that determines equal rights before the law?

E: Rhetorical question right?!

Proposition: The members of a society have (or should have) equal rights, duties, and privileges.

Proposition: In order to be a member of a society a person must be willing to defend the society against attacks from outside the society.
________________________________________

LC: The idea that in order to be a member of a society a person must be willing to defend the society against attacks from outside the society is completely and utterly asinine.

Proposition: It is foolish to expect a member of a society to be willing to defend the society from attack.

Proposition: As a member of a society a person has duties; and defending the society from attack is not one of those duties.
________________________________________

LC: Is it ever said that [in order to be a member of a society a person who has been given a deferment for whatever reason] must be willing to defend the society against attacks from outside the society]

E: I do not know, but I suspect it has been said. If it has not been said I will say it now.

"A person who is a member a society must be willing to defend the society."

E: A person who is mentally or physically unable to defend the society in some way should be given a deferment.

Question: Should a person who is unable to contribute to a society in some way be allowed to be in the society?
________________________________________

Fact: Women are people
________________________________________

LC: The idea that [in order to be a member of a society a person must be willing to defend the society against attacks] is said strictly and solely in regards to women

E: I did not know that. If true it supports my theory that life is not fair.

Proposition: Females do not have to be willing to defend society because it would be inconsistent the traditional gender rolls of an androcentric society.
________________________________________

LC: The idea that [in order to be a member of a society a person must be willing to defend the society against attacks] is said strictly and solely in regards to women

E: I did not know that. If true it supports my theory that life is not fair.

Proposition: Females do not have to be willing to defend society because it would be inconsistent the traditional gender rolls of an androcentric society.

________________________________________



________________________________________


LC: Females [were] restricted from serving in the military.

E: I did not know that. I have seen photos of women in the military; and though that there were.

________________________________________

Fact: woman serve in the military now.

________________________________________


LC: Woman serving in the military is ridiculously male centric

LC: how many women run around being aggressive in comparison to men

E: I do not know. My guess is not many.

________________________________________


LC: Woman in the military elevates war, aggression and fighting to the gold standard.

E: I did not know that.

________________________________________


LC: my taxes pay these soldier's wages.

E: mine too. I should not be required to defend my country if I can pay someone else to do it.

________________________________________

LC: I do not deserve equal protection and rights before the law because I have never - and will never (as the vast majority of men by the way) - be in the military.

E: Hmmm I am not sure that I agree with that. I would say that if you want to be a citizen you have responsibilities.


LC: Expecting citizens to have responsibilities is a sexist standard that has been repeated so often it has the weight of time as authority.

E: I did not know that. Expecting people to contribute to society is a sexist standard. esp. if the people are female.

E: Females are no more than breeding stock and should not be expected to do anything more than make babies.




Woman in military




Some rudeness allowed

Fact: Equality is a right.

Question: What is the qualifier for equality?

Question: what is equality?

What a load of s***e.

Firstly you have shown time and time again that you understand NOTHING about the military and have absolutely NO idea why blokes join up esp teeth units.

Secondly, you sprout the usual feminist bs that insists that whilst women have problems men cause problems. Bollocks.

In most forms of government, and especially in a democracy, wars are only fought if the government believe they have public support, or at least if they believe that there is no overwhelming opposition. In 2005 (the first general election post Iraq) the UK's voters had the chance to get rid of Blair, the man who had led the country to war. Instead he was voted back in and more women voted for him than did men. Furthermore, many female pollies supported Blair's decisions.

You seem to be of the view that with a female PM the UK wouldn't involve itself in war. Wouldn't use force to solve 'political' issues. And yet Maggie didn't hesitate to use force when confronted by a political issue. She didn't hesitate to send young men off to die. And thousands of women were there to wish the task force all the best as it headed off to the South Atlantic and thousands more were there to welcome them home (as they should have).

You remind me of the people here who yelled threats and insults (and even spat) at our servicemen during the Gulf War and then demanded that these same servicemen put their lives on the line in Somalia and Rwanda. They then protested in their thousands demanding that our government send in troops to East Timor even though it was still an Indonesian province. In other words they wanted our troops to invade Indonesia, and risk death or serious injury, in order to protect the locals. And yet these protesters (who were so quick to demand that our troops lives be put in danger) refused to do anything more than protest. There was nothing stopping them from joining groups like FReTiLIn but they weren't interested in risking their own lives, just those of our troops.

During our operations in East Timor our troops were supported by the left but come 2001 that all changed once again. The fact is though that soldiers don't make the decision to go to war, governments do. If you don't like the government's decision then blame them.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need soldiers, we wouldn't need police or courts etc. But we don't live in an ideal world and if your safety is ever threatened you'll expect servicemen and police officers to put their safety on the line to protect yours...but until then you will just go on spewing your vile at these men.

wow aussie how do you know how many women voted in the british election? were you here and do you have access to the voting papaers or something? I live here and have no idea how many women voted for this or that candidate. I don't even know who my wife voted for. I don't think too much about the war. it was a bad time and a bad thing and I reckon the fact that somebody can exercise their democratic right to protest against it is a good thing an dnot something to be howled down

I reckon the fewer wars there are the more our armed forces are successful in doing what we really want them to do. deter war. sorry mate I don't agree with what she says but she's got every right to say it. that's what our blokes are supposed to be fighting for.

"wow aussie how do you know how many women voted in the british election? were you here and do you have access to the voting papaers or something?"

Wasnt very hard to find the data, though it didnt mention which way your charlie voted!

" I reckon the fact that somebody can exercise their democratic right to protest against it is a good thing "

I have no problems with people protesting just so long as they treat others how they would like to be treated. But surely it is better to protest against those that actually make the decisions rather than hurl abuse at those who pay the highest price for decisions they dont even make.

As an aside, i find it interesting that polling by YouGov found that while 54 per cent of people supported the war at the time of the invasion in 2003, just 37 per cent of people polled today recall supporting it.

Meanwhile the 2003 poll found 38 per cent of people opposed the war, but today 43 per cent of people claim they did not support it at the time.

In the US the difference is even greater - 2003 polls found 63 per cent of people in the United States supported the invasion to remove Saddam Hussein, but fast-forward 12 years and just 38 per cent of people recall supporting it.

Old people do tend to have memory problems.

Most of our rights aren't even really there anymore. And it happened mostly in the past 30 years