Moderator: Community Team







brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society. Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.
About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it. We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.











got tonkaed wrote:brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society. Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.
About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it. We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.
seemingly you are confusing things like trying to fight for legal rights and economic oppertunity with things like being able to stand in lines and things like that. I also find it rather odd that in one sentence you complain about changing the names to policeman and fireman and then two sentences later claim that if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to a fair name for all people. I mean while at times it can go too far, if you were a woman would you like to have policeman as your job title? Its no the hardest thing in the world to call someone a police officer or a policewoman.
The fun thing about comparing apples to oranges is that you always going to be in the right because you arent actually giving your opponents the chance to debate you on level footing. They certainly arent the same thing, and using them as a straw man, when i dont even think you really care about whether or not someone is in line first (i can imagine most people dont) is perhaps less than the best way to argue.

brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights
brooksieb wrote:they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society.
Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.
About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it.
We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.
















PLAYER57832 wrote:brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights
Oh, you mean like STILL getting only 75% of what a man gets for the same job .. never mind any comparison between "pink collar" and "blue collar" jobs? You mean like women who marry STILL doing most of the housework and childcare ... on top of having fulltime jobs?
You mean the way that women who make more than their husbands are far more likely to end up divorced or in unhappy marriages?
brooksieb wrote:they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society.
Most of those "advantages" are either gone or irrelevant. Women AND children have been shot in war since Vietnam. Long distance warfare makes most evacuations more or less irrelevant. As for other evacuations ... it is not women, it is the elderly and children who go first. Women go with them to a greater extent because women are more likely to be caring for those folks.Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.
Most people agree. However, life in the military for woman is NOT in any way equal. Women get raped and the men don't get prosecuted. Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are. They do not have the same rights to rank advancement and training that men do. They are excluded from certain positions and therefore are excluded from certain ranks and advancements.About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it.
Sorry, but my husband is a fireMAN... but I was a fireFIGHTER. The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.
Mid spouses???? More to the point, it should not be a "wive" OR "spouse" because it has nothing to do with marriage. I agree with your point, but try again. Actually, other terms are used more and more frequently, though my mind is going blank right now.
























Frigidus wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights
Oh, you mean like STILL getting only 75% of what a man gets for the same job .. never mind any comparison between "pink collar" and "blue collar" jobs? You mean like women who marry STILL doing most of the housework and childcare ... on top of having fulltime jobs?
You mean the way that women who make more than their husbands are far more likely to end up divorced or in unhappy marriages?
brooksieb wrote:they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society.
Most of those "advantages" are either gone or irrelevant. Women AND children have been shot in war since Vietnam. Long distance warfare makes most evacuations more or less irrelevant. As for other evacuations ... it is not women, it is the elderly and children who go first. Women go with them to a greater extent because women are more likely to be caring for those folks.Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.
Most people agree. However, life in the military for woman is NOT in any way equal. Women get raped and the men don't get prosecuted. Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are. They do not have the same rights to rank advancement and training that men do. They are excluded from certain positions and therefore are excluded from certain ranks and advancements.About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it.
Sorry, but my husband is a fireMAN... but I was a fireFIGHTER. The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.
Mid spouses???? More to the point, it should not be a "wive" OR "spouse" because it has nothing to do with marriage. I agree with your point, but try again. Actually, other terms are used more and more frequently, though my mind is going blank right now.
Hey now, what's going on here? Get back in the kitchen!



















brooksieb wrote:Police man is not a masculine title, call me a idiot but i don't exactly agree with what i'm saying but because we're living in a more politically correct society and i can't do much about it (apart from moan on sites) i have to "adapt" so yeah we should have the right to call a police man a police man and a police woman a police woman and not none of this police officer stuff, after years of calling a police man a police man sometimes you can't help saying police man, try telling a eighty year old man that....
Or why change the name? if there is a thousand police, only 50 is women why should we resort to having to call them police officers when the majority are men and you're basically addicted to calling them police men. Alright i'll keep to the term midwife because alot of them are women, a couple of years back in the UK we had community support officers launched "enabling" the police to be able to "mediate" with different cultures and groups. Alot of these are women and because the 1st word is not police it makes it alot easier to say community support officers, this may sound stupid and it is but i'm going to stick to using police man (and yes it is not a masculine title) but i'm fine with anyone else being able to use midspouse, or police officer, the right to free speech should be observed in this one, on both sides i guess.
It's not the rules of "not shooting a women civilian" but it is common ettiquette in our society, to allow political correctness to prevail we must scrap that type of ettiquette.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.





























PLAYER57832 wrote: The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.





Snorri1234 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.
Besides, who doesn't like that?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.





























saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.










PLAYER57832 wrote:brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal ights
Oh, you mean like STILL getting only 75% of what a man gets for the same job .. never mind any comparison between "pink collar" and "blue collar" jobs? You mean like women who marry STILL doing most of the housework and childcare ... on top of having fulltime jobs?
You mean the way that women who make more than their husbands are far more likely to end up divorced or in unhappy marriages?
brooksieb wrote:they have to now sacrifice their' advantages... Like getting evacuated 1st if there is a evacuation taking place, or if there is a war going on, the army would normally worry about women which comes to be known as sentences like "don't shoot the women" etc etc, because we are trying to promote equality we must not let that happen because that is sexism and we don't want sexism in our society.
Most of those "advantages" are either gone or irrelevant. Women AND children have been shot in war since Vietnam. Long distance warfare makes most evacuations more or less irrelevant. As for other evacuations ... it is not women, it is the elderly and children who go first. Women go with them to a greater extent because women are more likely to be caring for those folks.Of course (unfortunately to some) most children are looked after my women, so this is why alot of women get a advantage being able to go 1st, which is fine however the problem is that if the woman, or male for that matter does not have a child or does not seem to have a child, he/she should not have the privilage of going first for lines or whatever the circumstances are, whether they be minor or they mean evacuating into a boat or helicopter, if either women or men are fit for conscription they should go up, men and women are apparently equal by feminists and such so they should both be conscripted equally.
Most people agree. However, life in the military for woman is NOT in any way equal. Women get raped and the men don't get prosecuted. Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are. They do not have the same rights to rank advancement and training that men do. They are excluded from certain positions and therefore are excluded from certain ranks and advancements.About names and titles, like policeman and fireman, there names should not be changed to police person, or fire person, because man means person/being in latin so there is no point to change it.
Sorry, but my husband is a fireMAN... but I was a fireFIGHTER. The fact that I took on what some seem to think a "male" occupation does not have anything to do with whether I like to wear dresses and makeup in my off hours.We should be changing feminine titles like mid-wives to midspouses because it is a feminine title, and yes if there is a masculine title, it should be changed to make it a fair name for all people.
Mid spouses???? More to the point, it should not be a "wive" OR "spouse" because it has nothing to do with marriage. I agree with your point, but try again. Actually, other terms are used more and more frequently, though my mind is going blank right now.

MeDeFe wrote:brooksieb wrote:Police man is not a masculine title, call me a idiot but i don't exactly agree with what i'm saying but because we're living in a more politically correct society and i can't do much about it (apart from moan on sites) i have to "adapt" so yeah we should have the right to call a police man a police man and a police woman a police woman and not none of this police officer stuff, after years of calling a police man a police man sometimes you can't help saying police man, try telling a eighty year old man that....
Or why change the name? if there is a thousand police, only 50 is women why should we resort to having to call them police officers when the majority are men and you're basically addicted to calling them police men. Alright i'll keep to the term midwife because alot of them are women, a couple of years back in the UK we had community support officers launched "enabling" the police to be able to "mediate" with different cultures and groups. Alot of these are women and because the 1st word is not police it makes it alot easier to say community support officers, this may sound stupid and it is but i'm going to stick to using police man (and yes it is not a masculine title) but i'm fine with anyone else being able to use midspouse, or police officer, the right to free speech should be observed in this one, on both sides i guess.
It's not the rules of "not shooting a women civilian" but it is common ettiquette in our society, to allow political correctness to prevail we must scrap that type of ettiquette.
I rest my case. Am I entitled to call you an idiot yet?

Playboy wrote:In 2002 more women than men are attending college. At a like 65% to 35% ratio. So colleges have started to implement Affirmative Action for men. Cause their Anti-White-Male-Lets-Call-It-Affirmative-Action-But-It's-Really-Racism went too far.







bedub1 wrote:Playboy wrote:In 2002 more women than men are attending college. At a like 65% to 35% ratio. So colleges have started to implement Affirmative Action for men. Cause their Anti-White-Male-Lets-Call-It-Affirmative-Action-But-It's-Really-Racism went too far.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
















bedub1 wrote:Playboy wrote:In 2002 more women than men are attending college. At a like 65% to 35% ratio. So colleges have started to implement Affirmative Action for men. Cause their Anti-White-Male-Lets-Call-It-Affirmative-Action-But-It's-Really-Racism went too far.



















jonesthecurl wrote:bedub1 wrote:Playboy wrote:In 2002 more women than men are attending college. At a like 65% to 35% ratio. So colleges have started to implement Affirmative Action for men. Cause their Anti-White-Male-Lets-Call-It-Affirmative-Action-But-It's-Really-Racism went too far.
If there's not enough guys in college of course you try to change the mix.
But I can't help but notice that the (six-years -old)story confuses sex with race.
How is having 2/3 women racist?































brooksieb wrote:Because women now have equal rights they have to now sacrifice their' advantages
PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh, you mean like STILL getting only 75% of what a man gets for the same job
PLAYER57832 wrote:Women get raped and the men don't get prosecuted.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are.






Simon Viavant wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Women are not afforded the same combat "opportunities' that men are.
Who in their right mind would want those opportunities?





















Users browsing this forum: No registered users