Can We Drop "Women"?
Okay, so just now on Fox News, Senator John McCain said, "...they drop these terrible barrel bombs that kill women and children".
Presumably these are a new high-tech bomb developed by the Syrian government which only kill women and children and leave the men standing, alive.
McCain is adamant about spending American blood and treasure in Syria. As far as I'm concerned, the more of each other they kill, it's win-win for us. Let the viper's fang each other.
But... can we get rid of that canard he used? "..women and children".
We send (insane) women into combat now. They get to fly jets and shoot guns and act just like the boys do, and they even get to play in the same sandbox...
So can we drop the hypocrisy of pretending that it's somehow worse for "barrel bombs" to kill women than to kill men? If it is... get the women the hell out of our military!
One of the things that aggravates me the most is people trying to have their cake and eat it, too. This is an example of that. I'm all for holding women up as more valuable than men; I was raised to believe I was disposable as far as the needs of women and children were concerned. Long ago I ceased taking pride in that, when the media started promoting women firefighters suckling their infants in front of the fire house where they "work" as firemen as feel-good "news".
So, can we now stop talking like hypocrites and stop saying "women and children"? We've got broads who left their children behind, when they got killed while playing at being men. Personally, I think this is not right. But, since modern society things their right to feel good playing at being men is more important than the well-being of their children... then fine, drop the "women" part of "women and children" from now on. Stop trying to be equal and special at the same time. It's really aggravating.
Presumably these are a new high-tech bomb developed by the Syrian government which only kill women and children and leave the men standing, alive.
McCain is adamant about spending American blood and treasure in Syria. As far as I'm concerned, the more of each other they kill, it's win-win for us. Let the viper's fang each other.
But... can we get rid of that canard he used? "..women and children".
We send (insane) women into combat now. They get to fly jets and shoot guns and act just like the boys do, and they even get to play in the same sandbox...
So can we drop the hypocrisy of pretending that it's somehow worse for "barrel bombs" to kill women than to kill men? If it is... get the women the hell out of our military!
One of the things that aggravates me the most is people trying to have their cake and eat it, too. This is an example of that. I'm all for holding women up as more valuable than men; I was raised to believe I was disposable as far as the needs of women and children were concerned. Long ago I ceased taking pride in that, when the media started promoting women firefighters suckling their infants in front of the fire house where they "work" as firemen as feel-good "news".
So, can we now stop talking like hypocrites and stop saying "women and children"? We've got broads who left their children behind, when they got killed while playing at being men. Personally, I think this is not right. But, since modern society things their right to feel good playing at being men is more important than the well-being of their children... then fine, drop the "women" part of "women and children" from now on. Stop trying to be equal and special at the same time. It's really aggravating.
I agree:
Let the muslims/arabs kill themselves off. It lessens the threat to Western Civilization via terrorism.
McCain is a pandering jackass who is among the biggest leftists in the Senate when there is no upcoming election.
I disagree:
While i have reservations, women aren't insane to serve in the military or CHOOSE to be put in combat situations.
Women are not "broads"
I understand the point your trying to make, and it a valid, but jeez can't you find a less abrasive way of saying it?
I dunno, I speak American English, I'm falling farther and farther behind speaking People's English. The latter is a term I (just now) invented to describe the "1984"-esque way moderns are required to speak.
"Broad", back when I was young, was used to describe a vulgar females who preferred hanging out with "the boys".
The problem I have with your criticism, which I find valid, is... how come I'm always the one who has to tiptoe around offending people... who offend the HELL out of me?
What has been done to women in my lifetime, in their name, is far, far more offensive than calling wannabe men "broads".
Women are insane if they want to engage in the masculine role of defending the society. This is not sane... for women.
Women who leave their children to go play at being a man, to the point of going into being in combat, are criminally insane.
Instead of being a society concerned with its cultural integrity, we've become a society concerned with indulging and enabling overgrown children.
What grownup woman enlists, making herself eligible for combat (you said "choose")... when she has children at home to care for? A woman who's more concerned with indulging her own fantasies than with accepting her responsibilities.
But, fine, if that's what you want, let the br... pieces of garbage (less offensive?) play at being men in the military. But *stop* giving them the special consideration due ladies and other women worthy of deferential treatment.
It's like living through deja vu all over again (to paraphrase Yogi Berra). I mean, just like 1600 years ago, we have a population more concerned with indulging vices than with maintaining a civilization, we have an economy based upon consuming imports, and the barbarians are flooding across the borders, with the serious barbarians growing in the distant reaches.
I guess that's the inevitable fate of republics. sigh