Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every birth control method has a failure rate. EVERY one of them. Condoms have the worst failure rate of all.
As Fleetiebelle says, the late term abortions are done because of birth defects on babies who were WANTED. I will not force a woman to give birth to a baby with no brain or no chance of survival and make her watch it live on life support for the few days it takes this baby to die. I would also not force a woman to carry to term a dead or dying baby that will not be able to live outside the uterus. How can anyone do that to someone else?
Planned Parenthood does much more than abortions. I had a UTI treated at a Planned Parenthood once because they have a sliding fee scale and I had no insurance. Before I found this out about PP, the last UTI I had was treated by a friend giving me some of her antibiotics. If you advocate closing down PP, you're advocating for women not receiving the help they need when they need it.
I heard that old saw when women wanted to be jockeys, police officers, doctors, or firefighters. It didn't end up being true then and it won't be true in combat, either.
It's like people saying they wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with someone who's gay. I have to tell you, if you're in a foxhole under a firefight, you don't care if the person with you is gay, female, white, black, striped, or polka dotted. All you're going to care about is if that person has your back. Period.
It has nothing to do with being in combat. It has everything to do with serving your country.
I don't want them to shut it down but I don't want to pay for women to have abortions. If you think people are only getting late term abortions when there is an issue with the child, you are delusional. I used to think all these same things too when I was young and naive. Now I know what's going on.
NOW combat roles are open to women only since 2013, and that was only because feminists fought the good fight to get “permission” to make that choice. The way you phrase your post makes it seem it has nothing to do with feminism or it’s old news, either are true. The fact women can be Army Rangers is because of feminism not in spite of it.
It’s actually only been since the tail end of 2015 that they were actually required to let women into combat roles across the board. Until then, the branches were still pondering it and doing feasibility studies with some weak arguments that it wouldn’t work out.
NOW combat roles are open to women only since 2013, and that was only because feminists fought the good fight to get “permission” to make that choice. The way you phrase your post makes it seem it has nothing to do with feminism or it’s old news, either are true. The fact women can be Army Rangers is because of feminism not in spite of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict
It’s actually only been since the tail end of 2015 that they were actually required to let women into combat roles across the board. Until then, the branches were still pondering it and doing feasibility studies with some weak arguments that it wouldn’t work out.
Women have been steadily advancing into combat occupations for thirty years. Some of first female combat officers became generals years ago.
If we want to say "because of feminism," great--but remember that feminism is more than a century old.
There is no restriction on women entering the military to serve their country.
There are a minority of specific "combat military occupations" that are currently closed to women--only a very small percentage of all the specialties available--and many of those open to women do, in fact, operate within combat zones and expose women to combat dangers.
So that is not an issue in the military: Women are exposed to combat all the time.
There are no military specialties closed to women "just because they're women." They remain closed because when the military tries them out--which happens more often than you think--they just plain fail the physical requirements.
The Army Rangers, for instance, are open to any women who can pass the training. I think so far one woman has passed it, and she's now a bona fide Ranger. I think one woman has passed the Marine combat officer course, and she's now in.
I agree with women being allowed into combat only if they're physically able to do the jobs. But you have to remember that for a long time, women weren't allowed to be combat whether they could do the job or not.
I agree with women being allowed into combat only if they're physically able to do the jobs. But you have to remember that for a long time, women weren't allowed to be combat whether they could do the job or not.
Which was true about blacks as well, once upon a time not that long ago.
That was then, this is now. What is the significance of that in this discussion?
Which was true about blacks as well, once upon a time not that long ago.
That was then, this is now. What is the significance of that in this discussion?
They were researching whether to allow women in infantry positions until late 2015 when the military had to be ordered to allow women into all roles. That was 3 years ago. That is pretty significant when the implementation is still very much in progress. The fact that many women won’t physically qualify is not relevant when women were not even allowed to try out. It took women fighting for these opportunities for these roles to be open to them. No, not many women will qualify to be Army Rangers, but they should certainly be allowed to try for it if it interests them and they otherwise qualify.
They were researching whether to allow women in infantry positions until late 2015 when the military had to be ordered to allow women into all roles. That was 3 years ago. That is pretty significant when the implementation is still very much in progress. The fact that many women won’t physically qualify is not relevant when women were not even allowed to try out. It took women fighting for these opportunities for these roles to be open to them.
As I said before, women have been "trying out" combat roles for over thirty years, and women have been moving into the combat roles into which they've been successful for over thirty years.
Women have been trying out for ground combat roles such as the Rangers for thirty years. They've been failing.
Quote:
No, not many women will qualify to be Army Rangers, but they should certainly be allowed to try for it if it interests them and they otherwise qualify.
Now, here is the funny thing about your statement: "...if it interests them."
I'll point out again that men don't have the "...if it interests them" option. When the military needs more infantry, they assign males to combat involuntarily.
Now, here is the funny thing about your statement: "...if it interests them."
I'll point out again that men don't have the "...if it interests them" option. When the military needs more infantry, they assign males to combat involuntarily.
I think some of this is how do we define our terms here. I also think that there are two many variable at play to simply say one or the other, one maybe lean one way in some areas and leans another way in other areas.
As I understand these terms I think that they can live side by side. A woman can be a feminist in the truest definition and still be considered "traditional" in some ways. In other words two large circle overlapping to a degree in the middle.
I think some of this is how do we define our terms here. I also think that there are two many variable at play to simply say one or the other, one maybe lean one way in some areas and leans another way in other areas.
As I understand these terms I think that they can live side by side. A woman can be a feminist in the truest definition and still be considered "traditional" in some ways. In other words two large circle overlapping to a degree in the middle.
That, and it also seems like the thread could’ve just been titled Feminism: good or bad?
Nobody here, who is saying negative things about feminism, bashing feminism, is posting supportive, good things about Traditional Women, what are traditional women? Defense of traditional women here, is just not talking about it, or defining it? In the way of defending it, all I see is bashing and defending feminism.
As was said in the very beginning, that can be done over in the POC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
