I came across this page due to clicking a "headline" in my Instant Buzz toolbar.
http://tjc.iwarp.com/custom.html
![]()





I came across this page due to clicking a "headline" in my Instant Buzz toolbar.
http://tjc.iwarp.com/custom.html
![]()
enter: E3167322D9 for your 10% discount
Hm...Well this tool is obviously bitter about something.
Nevertheless, the book that will not thank him for the advertising (and of which he is not an author) will likely make some extremely valid points. While 'misandry' might be going a little far (or might not, in some cases) the whole 'reverse discrimination' thing is getting out of hand.
I'm a great advocate of equal rights...with the key word there being equal. One of the best examples of this is the double-standard in the fire department (at least in Australia, don't know about the States). Fire fighters are expected to maintain a certain level of physical fitness, and have to take a regular test, part of which measures their ability to move a limp body around.
I start having real problems with affirmative action when the standards expected from women are significantly lower than the standards expected from men. I don't have the exact test on hand, but I remember thinking at the time, "If I'm ever trapped in a burning building, and the firey who comes to get me out is a woman, I'm a dead man."
And what are our boys being taught?... don't express emotion BUT get in touch with your
feelings... very mixed messages. And what are our young girls taught? Be a slut like
<insert latest teen idol here>?
Overheard in toy store:
"Mommy what's this?" (Holding box of toy shoes)
"Oh, here are the shoes you wear for grade school, these are your sweet sixteen shoes, and
these are your wedding shoes."
"What shoes do I wear after that Mom? Mom?..."
I guess at that point your life is over and you don't get any more shoes. You've found a man
to take care of you and you can retire... LOL
What I like about dancing is that it reverses the equation... The ladies have the power over
the male customers, but we're independent, not dependent on the men. Sure, tips are
voluntary, but we know how to use our influence, as in life.
Some dancers become cynical and learn to hate men, while others become more appreciative of
our differences/similiarities.
http://www.nomarriage.com/
This guy is EVEN worse. Just look at Customer Convo these days. Its painfully OBVIOUS that men are the victims in this horrid cruel world, not US!
The day that people accept that the genders are not equal, and that having a vagina = money, is the day we are all a little happier![]()
"Have you ever been to American wedding? Where is the vodka, where's marinated herring?" - GB
"And do the cats give a shit? No, they do not. Why? Because they're cats."-from The Onion
Originally Posted by Mia M





Jeez. That's nutso.
Did you guys see this?
Only marry foreign women.
A huge percentage of American women are selfish, flighty, insecure, needy and psychotic, and quite capable of concealing those traits during the dating phase.
Bottom of the barrel---white American chicks. Yecch.
Always check out the mom today to see your honey tomorrow. Is mom fat? Never marry a woman who is sexually demanding in terms of your performance, who withholds sex on a regular basis on the grounds of headache or disinclination, or thinks she has a "right" to anything in particular sexually -- who, for example, will refuse you sex or make you keep doing things in bed on the grounds that you didn't get her off the last time. You are going to get older and fatter and her libido is going to go off a cliff as she gets older and has kids. If she is even slightly hard to deal with sexually now (in terms of giving it up, or in terms of demanding things from you now) she is going to be IMPOSSIBLE to deal with five years after marriage. You WILL have a marriage which is nearly sexless.
Last edited by hardkandee; 01-27-2005 at 11:37 AM. Reason: I'm a doof
Because there ain't no tits on the radio
Right, anything "demanding sexually" like pleasure at all!! Oh sure, foreign women don't want to get off at all, only US women, bleh!
"Have you ever been to American wedding? Where is the vodka, where's marinated herring?" - GB
"And do the cats give a shit? No, they do not. Why? Because they're cats."-from The Onion
Originally Posted by Mia M
I believe in equal rights, too. Most people do that I talk to. Until you talk about draft registration.
I am very interested in this, because "affirmative action" in fire departments is a huge source of anti-feminist backlash - and a lot of the information about it is untrue. Like people saying "IF this scenario were to happen, then THIS scenario COULD happen, etc." There was one guy who sold a whole lot of books, did a whole lot of interviews contending that he was actually FIRED from his firefighting job as a result of feminist affirmative action (anybody who know anything about firefighting positions or affirmative action knows how unlikely this is) who was just lying - there was not a single woman employed at the fire station he had previously worked at. Not even one. One of my best friends (female) used to be a firefighter and she gave me a great deal of insight into affirmative action, what it cost, what it actually consists of (an element people really misunderstand) and whether or not it produces ineffectual employees. So - how, exactly, are the standards for women firefighters lower?Originally Posted by kymchoon
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
^ Hmmmmm.....
Did some digging, and finally got my hands on the physical aptitude test. This crap should be easier to find, dammit (just because I was looking for the wrong keywords...) Well, bugger. One of the few times I don't double-check my facts, because I couldn't find the source, and it bites me in the ass. Turns out they're not. Guess that's the problem, though. I hear it from somebody I trust, who heard it from somebody he trusts, who heard it from...who?
I stand corrected. On the firefighting issue, at least (which makes me feel better).Guess I assumed the info was good, based on my knowledge of many government recruitment procedures. My mother works closely with the HR section of her department (health), becasue she does a lot of recruiting, and apparently the standing joke there is that, "if you're a disabled, aboriginal woman, you've got the job." Not that they'd ever admit it officially, of course.
Hey, I admit I'm part of the problem. I play the system. If I'm applying for a job at certain places and there's a box for 'ethnicity', I tick 'Chinese'. But just because I can use it to my advantage, doesn't mean I think it's right.
Heh, and that whole 'foreign women' thing is just funny. "Hi, I'm fucking awful in bed and believe I have a right to be. Sex is only about me. Hey, why don't I have a girlfriend..?"![]()





The book was written by a female professor.
She neglected to add Lifetime television to the male bashing/femi nazi list.
Maybe she wouldnt have to have written it if you girls didnt keep picking on us alla time.
lololI believe in equal rights, too. Most people do that I talk to. Until you talk about draft registration.
your just tryin to start poo aintcha?!?!?!?
The list is long of jobs that dont have equal phisical requirments,to include all branches of the military,and most police forces/fire depts.
Equal rights is one thing IMO,but changing the requirments so they are not equal aint equal.
Dude - it's not just you. That's exactly what I was talking about, how we all make assumption about it. For some reason the firefighter issue is particularly potent - although my girlfriend, when arguing with some guys (don't ask why) about the issues of firefighting was asked if she could as readily sling a 200 lb man over her shoulders and carry him out of a building, responding by saying that nobody could do that in a burning building unless they wanted the floor to collapse underneath them from excessively concentrated weight - like think about it - 200 lb man, carrying another 200lb man - that's 400 lbs plus equipment concentrated in a very small area on a very unstable floor. They're going through. But we see it in the movies, right?Originally Posted by kymchoon
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





That might be more the difference between equal rights and equal responsibilities.Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
You just never hear anyone demanding equal responsibilities.![]()
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
^^^
Well. Let's consider this, for a brief moment. Forgetting the idea that most people are pretty firmly against drafting anybody, do you think it is fair to draft people into a military in which they still don't enjoy equal opportunities? It is harder for them to get promoted, and there are still areas in which they cannot serve? If you are going to draft women, you need to implement a sex-blind military, which is what all the backlash over affirmative action is about - starting rumors that "prove" women can't do the job, and therefore can't serve in certain areas or be promoted to certain positions. So. You're locked in. Until women "can" do the jobs in question, they can't be forced to do the jobs in question, right?
Of course, ideally, you won't be drafting anyone. Because that isn't nice. And nice is important.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





Well, if nice were important, but nice often gives way to expedient.Originally Posted by Jenny
And, although my data is somewhat out of date, I know that promotion opportunities for women and the ability to enter many more career fields has greatly expanded for women.
I would, however, argue that the vast majority of draftees, during times of a draft, are not entering military service looking for promotion opportunities. Most are looking for the out door. This has proven to be an advantage of the all volunteer force, but has also begun to separate the military from the general population in an idealogical sense over time, which I think may prove to be dangerous eventually, but is a whole different subject.
But if we consider the necessity of wartime and the general opinion that making a group of conscripts happy with their assigned career field and corresponding promotion opportunities is really not a consideration, there really should not be much hesitation to draft women and plunk them in the jobs to which they have been determined suitable.
That said, I have no personal objection to a woman pursuing any military occupation that she chooses.
I do, however, submit that stepping forward and assuming responsibilities will open doors faster than simply complaining that they're not open.
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
Expanded yes - equalized, no.And, although my data is somewhat out of date, I know that promotion opportunities for women and the ability to enter many more career fields has greatly expanded for women.
Not the point. Fact remains - it is grossly unfair to force someone to take on a job that she doesn't even have equal opportunity at. I think you would probably agree if the party in question were a member of any group besides "women" - at least, most people would think that it was terrible to conscript black men during wars past purely to use them as cannon fodder (these are metaphorical cannons - not actual ones). Besides - you didn't even acknowledge my Catch 22. I was so proud of it. And one might, if one were so inclined, argue that if expediency is so crucial, then perhaps policies forbidding women from certain service is inexpedient?I would, however, argue that the vast majority of draftees, during times of a draft, are not entering military service looking for promotion opportunities. Most are looking for the out door.
But you're making giant leaps there. It isn't a matter of being happy. It is a matter of equality. Equality, and the rights thereto, should ALWAYS be a consideration in the free world. Isn't that the point? Why else would we bother HAVING a free world? What possible reason could women have to potentially lay down their lives for a country that denigrates them even while throwing them to the wolves?But if we consider the necessity of wartime and the general opinion that making a group of conscripts happy with their assigned career field and corresponding promotion opportunities is really not a consideration, there really should not be much hesitation to draft women and plunk them in the jobs to which they have been determined suitable.
That's nice. It's nice when we can find some common ground. And I maintain that "nice" is important.That said, I have no personal objection to a woman pursuing any military occupation that she chooses.
Okay, that's just completely untrue - I think you know as well as I do that in this world "assuming responsibility" (at least in the context you are using the term) doesn't open anything - it just leads to more work at a similar pay, as any disenfranchised group has shown. Unless you are no longer referring to conscription, and are now referrring to voluntary service - in which case, yeah, obviously one would have join before one could demand the opportunities to be promoted. But you would still have to sue - it wouldn't just happen. Or at least, I don't think it ever has. If anyone knows of a sexually discriminatory policy being overturned without a lawsuit in US or Canada, I would love to hear about it.I do, however, submit that stepping forward and assuming responsibilities will open doors faster than simply complaining that they're not open.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





Curses, I'm being drawn into this.![]()
QUOTE]
Not the point. Fact remains - it is grossly unfair to force someone to take on a job that she doesn't even have equal opportunity at. I think you would probably agree if the party in question were a member of any group besides "women" - at least, most people would think that it was terrible to conscript black men during wars past purely to use them as cannon fodder (these are metaphorical cannons - not actual ones). Besides - you didn't even acknowledge my Catch 22. I was so proud of it. And one might, if one were so inclined, argue that if expediency is so crucial, then perhaps policies forbidding women from certain service is inexpedient?
[/QUOTE]
The interesting conflict in your point is that the jobs women have traditionally denied access to are the "cannon fodder" jobs. So a corolary of your point concerning your hypothetical conscription of black men is that conscripting someone and assuring their safety should be OK. Although, I'm sure that's not what you meant.
Military society is not often considered to occur within a free world.But you're making giant leaps there. It isn't a matter of being happy. It is a matter of equality. Equality, and the rights thereto, should ALWAYS be a consideration in the free world. Isn't that the point? Why else would we bother HAVING a free world? What possible reason could women have to potentially lay down their lives for a country that denigrates them even while throwing them to the wolves?
And as General George C. Scott, I mean Patton, once said, "you don't win a war by giving your life for your country; you win a war by cinvincing the other poor son of a bitch to give his life for his country". Not nice, but then I don't think Patton was ever called nice.
Again, in the restricted version, women are far less often provided the opportunity to sacrifice their lives than in the equality version. In other words, your point is valid, but your logic is flawed.![]()
Well, nice is nice and I like nice, but its importance is quite subjective.That's nice. It's nice when we can find some common ground. And I maintain that "nice" is important
I haven't studied the entire history of door opening lawsuits, but perhaps you have miss aspiring lawyer, so I can't tell you what you'd love to hear. But I can give you one of my favorite WWII era motivational images. It represents an attitude that I've always respected and what I suggested to be potentially a more productive approach.Okay, that's just completely untrue - I think you know as well as I do that in this world "assuming responsibility" (at least in the context you are using the term) doesn't open anything - it just leads to more work at a similar pay, as any disenfranchised group has shown. Unless you are no longer referring to conscription, and are now referrring to voluntary service - in which case, yeah, obviously one would have join before one could demand the opportunities to be promoted. But you would still have to sue - it wouldn't just happen. Or at least, I don't think it ever has. If anyone knows of a sexually discriminatory policy being overturned without a lawsuit in US or Canada, I would love to hear about it
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
Gosh, despite what people might think, I just meant my comment to be a wry, stand-alone comment, not spark a debate.
Most people to whom I've spoken don't want women in the front lines (except as combat pilots and sailors, perhaps), and most women I've spoken to would prefer to be left out of the draft (well, who wouldn't?), although we know that the draft is a moot point, as registration is a legal formality - the armed forces are still filled with volunteer recruits.
As for me, whatever people are qualified to do and want to do, let them do it, if there's room. Equal rights, responsibilities, access, opportunities, duties, descriptions, whatever - if we're going to say equal, let's make it so and not give lip service to it.
As out of touch with reality as that book "Cunt" is.Originally Posted by GoldCoastGirl
What an interestingly divided society the US is turning into eh?





Yup thats her!!!!Originally Posted by Silverback
ROSIE THE RIVITER!!!!!!
Its all HER fault,it can all be traced back to her!!!!





Actually, if you watch old reruns of ancient TV shows, the male is with distressing frequency shown to be an idiot, living a lie that is barely under control, except by dint of the demure housewife, slyly taking care of all his fuck-ups and disasters.
The perfect example of this would be the ridiculous (or perhaps "redickless" would be more appropriate) "Bewitched", with the least admirable male in modern media, other than maybe Gilligan, Darin Whateverhislastfuckingnameis.
Here is a guy whose wife can and will gleefully get him anything he desires, merely by twitching her nose...so what does he do? Insists on his male prerogative to fight mightily in the exclusively male, competitve business world, in order to feel a sense of self worth, while his all-powerful wife is stuck at home vacuuming, using Tide detergent, and fantasizing about Mr. Clean.
Meanwhile, Darin's main ability in the vicious masculine business jungle consists of sucking up to the assholes of his boss and whatever advertising clients he is trying to cajole into using their agency. He can't even get this right, and almost invariably his wife has to twitch her nose to straighten his messes out, without his knowledge, of course, so he won't blow his gasket more than he usually does in his quaint, balless way every show.
This is perhaps the worst case, but other than beer, truck, and shaving cream commercials, with their ridiculous overblown macho stereotypes, TV is pretty hard on the 'typical' male. He is almost always a nerd, and his primary goal in life seems to be getting his Tacos with the right sauce, served by other pathetic, smirking nerds in ridiculous hats.
Of course there is the other side of the coin, where women are seen as trophies and conquests, with little or no intellectual aptitude, and are invariably suckers for the most trite, predictable lines imagineable. The worst offender as far as showing women as brainless sex toys is probably MTV, though it is all-pervasive throughout the fantasy world of television.
The truth be told, popular media isn't kind to either sex, and we as Americans aren't very nice to each other when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. The male ideal is to fuck as many women as possible and treat them like shit, until tossing them aside like empty bottles. The female ideal seems to be to snag the biggest diamond possible from a guy driving a Porsche, who nonetheless will do whatever she says, since she has the keys to what he wants.
I would agree for the most part with the notion that stripclubs offer an arena in which the woman can seize back the power, and have it her way. But that is leaving out management, ownership, and in many clubs, the DJs and bouncers as well.
These guys all too often treat the dancers as complete idiots who are incapable of understanding rudimentary business transactions or behavior, other than letting the perverts have their way with them, and never minding the condescending attitude and blatant ass-grabbing that is their right, as the men running the show. And what men! They are among the most moronic imagineable in any industry, and the ugliest of them will rapidly adopt an attitude befitting Hugh Hefner or Brad Pitt.
Furthermore, the women, though they may refuse to do so, are all too often expected to allow some truly repulsive and pathetic assholes have their way with them for 20$ a song, and are also expected to reduce their rates for specials or freebies whenever the men running the show deem prudent, which is usually when they want to sell more T-shirts.
These trends must be combatted for women in the industry to really "take the power back", to quote one of my favorite Rage Against the Machine songs. I'm all for it.
Mutual respect is, or should be, the name of the game...
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________
I know - I'm very weaselly.Curses, I'm being drawn into this.![]()
I think that my point was that if you are going to conscript someone - which I am thoroughly against for both sexes, by the way - then they should have equal opportunities within the organization to which they are conscripted. I don't even think you have an actual argument with that - I just think you like to type.The interesting conflict in your point is that the jobs women have traditionally denied access to are the "cannon fodder" jobs. So a corolary of your point concerning your hypothetical conscription of black men is that conscripting someone and assuring their safety should be OK. Although, I'm sure that's not what you meant.
So, if the US conscripts (god forbid) than freedom, equality and the American Way are what - shucked off by the wayside? Then what's the point?Military society is not often considered to occur within a free world.
Okay, hold on a moment - my logic is perfectly intact. You are just quoting selectively. We are here discussing the merits etc. of conscripting women - women are not currently conscripted, so applying current standards against our hypothetical ones is obviously not logical. One of the first points I made was that women are deemed inappropriate for certain jobs - therefore they cannot be forced to do the jobs that the agency conscripting has predecided they are not capable of doing. In the equal version, women would have equal opportunity to lay down their lives, but they would also have the same service and promotion opportunities. This is what I contended from the beginning, and it is perfectly intact.And as General George C. Scott, I mean Patton, once said, "you don't win a war by giving your life for your country; you win a war by cinvincing the other poor son of a bitch to give his life for his country". Not nice, but then I don't think Patton was ever called nice.
Again, in the restricted version, women are far less often provided the opportunity to sacrifice their lives than in the equality version. In other words, your point is valid, but your logic is flawed.![]()
I don't know actually - I do know of several lawsuits, but I don't know of what advances were made without lawsuits.I haven't studied the entire history of door opening lawsuits, but perhaps you have miss aspiring lawyer, so I can't tell you what you'd love to hear.
Arggh! Just... arggh! You can't possibly be serious! You think Rosie the Riveter represented a major step forward in women's liberation? Well, she did, obviously, but she was a cheap marketing ploy to make women pick up slack without actually extending the rights and freedoms associated with it - the men are gone, so suddenly the women are perfectly physically capable of working in factories, but as soon as they come back the women are once again biologically pre-determined baby machines. Rosie the Riveter was a cheap whore who betrayed the sisterhood.But I can give you one of my favorite WWII era motivational images. It represents an attitude that I've always respected and what I suggested to be potentially a more productive approach.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth





The women who actually worked in the factories may not have been so bad. The powers that be who suddenly deemed it wrong for women to do this work after men were available again were the real culprits.Originally Posted by Jenny
It really must be said that the reasons for keeping women out of combat are increasingly contrived.
The number of casualties suffered from actual hand-to-hand combat, in which a man's presumed greater strength and size might prove more effective, has been drastically reduced with the increasing mechanization of war. Furthermore, though the present ambush/terrorist style of warfare we are seing in Iraq tends to counteract this, the typical serviceman in the US Army is not a combat infantryman. The ratio of service troops (supply, communications, etc.) to actual combat troops was somewhere near 10-1 in World War II, and is higher now.
The means of dispensing death no longer require greater strength or size, but eye-hand co-ordination. Aiming and squeezing the trigger is not a male area of expertise, nor is pushing buttons on a computer screen to figure out the most effective artillery concentration--a far more effective way of killing in modern war than shooting a rifle.
The avoidance of subjecting captured women to rape is about the only real reason for keeping them out of the front lines, other than the traditional notion of protecting women, who are physically inferior and meek, in times of war.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________





Indeed, you are, but worse, you argue from the opposite side of a split hair, thus compelling your opponent to mistakenly believe that futher discussion might lead to resolution and agreement. I've seen you make remarkable strides toward the taming of the punk.I know - I'm very weaselly.
And again, since conscription is not actually under way here, or, I believe there, and neither you nor I are likely to be asked by our respective governments for our opinion should it come about, my only point is that both genders should have the same suceptibility to the draft, whether it is or isn't currently going on. Although, I don't think I've ever actually heard of a woman fighting (or suing) to be put in the infantry. And, as Djoser implied, most of the combat fields that actually lead to promotion have been opened to women for some time. Again, my only concern with there not being a draft is my fear that many of our military are losing a connection with the civilian population and that in some of their minds (and I worked with them) a caste system is forming, with some (and I hope still few) military members seeing themselves to be superior to the civilian population. Again, I guess, a separate subject. Actually, I hate to type. That's why I usually stick to being a one-liner smartass whenever possible.I think that my point was that if you are going to conscript someone - which I am thoroughly against for both sexes, by the way - then they should have equal opportunities within the organization to which they are conscripted. I don't even think you have an actual argument with that - I just think you like to type.![]()
The point is what it takes to preserve the commmon good. In entering military service voluntarily or by conscription, the few give up many of the freedoms, civil rights, and other perks of the American way, so that the rest of us can be assured of those things. It's a system, the very nature of which, demands that the needs of the many take precedence over the needs of the few, or the one.So, if the US conscripts (god forbid) than freedom, equality and the American Way are what - shucked off by the wayside? Then what's the point?
I continue to disagree. In a time of actual need for a draft, a lot of those in the military would rather be in jobs other than those in which they are placed. I contend only that conscripts can be forced to do jobs that a conscripting agency has determined that they are capable of doing.Okay, hold on a moment - my logic is perfectly intact. You are just quoting selectively. We are here discussing the merits etc. of conscripting women - women are not currently conscripted, so applying current standards against our hypothetical ones is obviously not logical. One of the first points I made was that women are deemed inappropriate for certain jobs - therefore they cannot be forced to do the jobs that the agency conscripting has predecided they are not capable of doing. In the equal version, women would have equal opportunity to lay down their lives, but they would also have the same service and promotion opportunities. This is what I contended from the beginning, and it is perfectly intact.
OK, then, I guess we'll just have to table that discussion. I can think of a couple of examples where people got someplace through a lawsuit only to quit almost immediately after getting there. I don't think that approach ever creates a good image in anyone's mind. And, I would argue that, in some ways, it makes it harder for members of the same group that try to follow/I don't know actually - I do know of several lawsuits, but I don't know of what advances were made without lawsuits.
I have never looked at Rosie from the perspective of women's liberation. I've looked at Rosie as symbolic of an attitude that I believe serves people better than complaining that something has not been handed to them. I've always found that approach unbecoming. If you want to do something, then do it. It's a comon approach in the world of work, you survive best by taking on responsibility and making yourself indispensible. And it was unfortunate that a generation of strong working women were turned into aspiring June Cleavers.Arggh! Just... arggh! You can't possibly be serious! You think Rosie the Riveter represented a major step forward in women's liberation? Well, she did, obviously, but she was a cheap marketing ploy to make women pick up slack without actually extending the rights and freedoms associated with it - the men are gone, so suddenly the women are perfectly physically capable of working in factories, but as soon as they come back the women are once again biologically pre-determined baby machines. Rosie the Riveter was a cheap whore who betrayed the sisterhood.
As for Rosie betraying the sisterhood, I would argue that there is no sisterhood.
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
That's the point - she was their tool. The hussy.The women who actually worked in the factories may not have been so bad. The powers that be who suddenly deemed it wrong for women to do this work after men were available again were the real culprits.
Because men can't be raped. So,that's sensible.The avoidance of subjecting captured women to rape is about the only real reason for keeping them out of the front lines, other than the traditional notion of protecting women, who are physically inferior and meek, in times of war.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
It is better to have your son's ass kicked daily than your daughter raped. Or so the thinking goes. Both have physical and psychological harm.Originally Posted by Jenny
It is not sensible unless the man is expendable - which I read about to often...
Bookmarks