Women are physically incapable of doing any type of job that requires a man's strength which means I disagree with this decision [to have women in combat]. The first duty of a woman is to be a homemaker but I don't mind if they work a job they are capable of doing. (Although once you have kids, you gotta stop working then raise the kids until they're about 14 or 15, I guess. Maybe a little younger)
50 comments
"which means I disagree with this decision [to have women in combat]."
Fortunately you don't get to make that decision. Your chosen-by-god president Dumbya fucked up enough without adding your dumbfuckery to the process.
Size and strength don't count so much in modern warfare, compared to the days of exclusively hand-to-hand combat. That's allowing for the deluded statement that "Women are physically incapable of doing any type of job that requires a man's strength", which is just clearly wrong. There are plenty of women physically stronger than plenty of men. But it's nice of you to allow them to work. Provided they don't have kids of course. Oh no, that would never do. It's also nice to see a Stormfront member branching out into sexism. Adds a little variety to the site.
"Women are physically incapable of doing any type of job that requires a man's strength which means I disagree with this decision [to have women in combat]. The first duty of a woman is to be a homemaker"
Female pilots of Tornado planes:
image
And only the best of the best in our RAF get to fly our Eurofighter Typhoons:
image
Your argument is invalid.
How old is this douchwaffle? 12? Try forming an opinion about women when you grow up & meet a few.
I'm not a military girl or a weightlifter but I bet I could kick your ass in a fight. Back in high school though-I once broke a hockey stick over a male classmate's knee. He dropped his stick & bolted, hands in the air. There was much laughing.
Women are physically incapable of doing any type of job that requires a man's strength
[citation needed]
The first duty of a woman is to be a homemaker
[citation needed]
Although once you have kids, you gotta stop working then raise the kids until they're about 14 or 15, I guess.
[citation needed]
Noticing a trend?
Define 'combat'.
If you mean hand-to-hand, maybe you can make an argument from raw muscle mass. But being a lightweight doesn't stop my karate instructor from taking down 100-kilo former Marines, and she's a grandmother now. Ten thousand hours of karate, aikido, and judo more than offsets 20 cm of height, 40 kg of mass, 25 years of youth, and 200 hours of MCMAP.
And there are still plenty of women who are stronger than most men - talk to my cousins, one of whom worked for the DEA and the other of whom is a cop on the SWAT team rotation. I might be able to go toe-to-toe with one of them in a barehanded fight, but that's with all of the martial arts that I know. I'd lose at arm wrestling and tonfa every time.
And if you mean anything other than hand-to-hand (which is very little of combat these days), muscle mass is irrelevant . Anon-e-moose may like the RAF, but I prefer the Astronaut Corps pilots. All of the skill and high-gee manuevers of the top guns, without the shooting people.
So: 'WhitePride' is an ignorant fool as well as a misogynist and a racist.
However, it's perfectly all right for women in the US and around the world to have the most dirty, dangerous, backbreaking jobs on farms, in factories, quarries, construction crews, etc.
Plenty of women work while raising kids. Many don't have a choice because they're single or their husband/boyfriend doesn't make enough to support the family. And there are men who would get stomped by women in terms of physical strength. Ever heard of female body builders, football players, etc?
Women are physically incapable of doing any type of job that requires a man's strength
If a job requires strength or physical endurance, just test for those things. It's a lot more reliable than looking at their sex organs.
@Anon-e-moose
Damn it but that makes me proud of our British female RAF fighter pilots!
Like to see WhitePrideNY14 explain to them why they shouldn't be in combat and should be at home pooping out babies and doing the dishes.
WhitePrideNY14, one name Boadicea, you lose. In Celtic Britain and indeed until the Norman Invasion, women weren't only revered but fought, were tribal leaders and generally worked alongside the men.
Right! What we need is manly men in the army.
image
With those man boobs, who needs women?
Let the meek, petit, dainty females stay at home and raise the kids so they can become valuable citizens.
image
image
I'm not in any way interested in being in the military, though, if women want to join the military, let them, and let them be in combat. Women have to fulfill the same physical requirements men have to fulfill.
I talked to a marine (he married into our family) and he said, his problem with women in combat is emotional, he feels more protective of women than of men and it would shock him more to see a woman die in combat than a man. Now, that is his personal feeling about the situation, but frankly, it is his problem. Why should women not be combat fighters just because men can't get their emotions under control? Besides, the way wars are fought these days combat could be anywhere, it's not that we still meet on a field and fight from morning till evening and go home at night!
@Old Viking:
You seem to have missed the point.
Nobody should be in combat, except for carefully-controlled martial arts.
But as long as it is necessary for some people to fight, everybody who wants to take the job and can do it is eligible. Then you pick the best; regardless of their karyotype, appearance, or gender identity. Anything else is stupidly limiting the talent pool.
hmm, so I must be a girl ? I have a penis but am not very strong at the moment. Some 70 year old granny can dead lift a lot more than me .
Once kids are in school a mother can work at least part time and older kids , say 10, can have a house key and amuse themselves for the few hours till mom gets home.
@#1452677:
Your model is still far too limiting. Less a few months around giving birth, a woman can do almost all occupations quite well (including combat - although maybe not long deployment to a war zone). Childcare for young children does involve a lot of work, but we can design society to accommodate that. My office-mate defended her thesis six weeks after giving birth, and did a lot of work with her daughter either in her crib next to her desk or sitting next to her husband's desk elsewhere in the building. If they were working further apart, things would have been less convenient.
I know of a police detective who was nailing murder cases when her daughter was two months old, taking breaks during her shifts only to duck into an office to use her breast pump to fill milk bottles that her husband would use to feed the baby. That lady is a total badass.
I've seen women do jobs just as well as men. Jobs such as military, emts, police, etc. You fail whiteprideny14
Swastikas and Klan robes. Sexist, racist, homophobes. Aryan nations and hammerskins, you can wear my nuts on your nazi chins.
Well, by linguistic logic, a woman is incapable of doing anything that requires a man's strength, because even Wonder Woman in the middle of throwing a cement mixer at someone has a woman's strength, by definition. And proud of it.
But I'm not sure there are many jobs that require a man's strength necessarily. I guess any men's division sports, because rules. Uhm, physical work in traditionally male monasteries. Weightlifting ads targeted at men and their sense of manliness.
@ Anon: "No one should be in combat" is a noble sentiment, but totally beside the point. Despite notable exceptions, women are neither temperamentally nor physically suited to combat. Tell ya what, go to YouTube, search for "eastern front," and watch as many videos as you can endure.
>>Old Viking
Despite notable exceptions, women are neither temperamentally nor physically suited to combat.<<
You Are Wrong, unless you will also say "despite notable exceptions, men are neither temperamentally nor physically suited to combat."
Your own example shows you to be wrong. 800,000 women served in the Soviet military in WWII; women were pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crews, and many other things. They fought very well, and far too many of them died.
Also: "temperamentally" is a meaningless word in this context. Everybody's temperament is in large part the result of how they are socialized when they are young. Patriarchal cultures usually socialize male children to be much more assertive, aggressive, and confrontational than female children. Saying "women aren't temperamentally fit for combat" then becomes a self-perpetuating fallacy: female children grow up being told "you shouldn't want to fight", so most of them don't want to fight. Remove the differential socialization, and female children will be just as assertive, aggressive, and confrontational as male children.
Oh please. Women are just as strong as men, and even if they weren't physically as strong, I know plenty of women you could kick your teeth in and make you eat pavement. Hell, I know a girl who has 5 black belts, then this big, bull-headed jackass put the moves on her but wouldn't take 'no' for an answer, and she completely DESTROYED him. It was fucking hilarious. And I hope it happens to you.
You're opinions are stupid but this "The first duty of a woman is to be a homemaker" offends me.
Tell ya what; When you grow a vagina you can tell me what a women's duty is, until then don't you dare to presume to tell any women what their "first duty" is.
On another note, I bet you'd die if you had to endure the physical pain and effort of childbirth.
Oh yes, because no work in the home requires strength, no siree. Hauling wet laundry is a piece of cake, as is vacuuming a whole house, washing 15 windows on all sides, beating the dust out of 10 long rugs and kneading a large cinnamon-roll dough. Not to mention carrying around a growing fetus for nine months and then squeeze it out through an opening a little bit too small. My sister in laws had 28 hours of labor the first time she gave birth. She still went ahead and had a second child a few years later.
The 14 in your name is your age, right dearie? Has your mummy just started working again, after pampering her little darling day in and day out for 13 years? Are we feeling a leetle bit abandoned, perhaps? There now, dearie, you'll adjust in time.
"Women are physically incapable of doing any type of job that requires a man's strength which means I disagree with this decision [to have women in combat]"
My grandmother would love to have a word with you (and maybe a foot up your ass as well ;)).
"The first duty of a woman is to be a homemaker but I don't mind if they work a job they are capable of doing. (Although once you have kids, you gotta stop working then raise the kids until they're about 14 or 15, I guess. Maybe a little younger)"
So according to you numbskulls, if a woman works, she should "Stop and be a homemaker". If she is a homemaker, she's a "gold-digger". No way to with with you assholes.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.