Hegseth Boosts Video of Pastors Saying Women Shouldn't Vote, Advocating Repeal of 19th Amendment

comana · Friday at 4:48 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Yes. It does. Here is an idea. What if women started showing equality to men? How many women would be okay with their husband choosing to stay home while the wife works and provides?

Many would and currently do have this arrangement with their husbands. I think is the man more often objecting to this arrangement though.

comana · Friday at 5:04 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Every time you ever asked a man to help you with a task because you couldn't do it on your own and you knew a man could do it more easily, you pulled the "but I am a girl" card.

Work smarter not harder. Nothing wrong with teamwork.

In spite of modern feminism making so much strides in "equality," why is just about every blue collar hard labor job dominated by men? Where are all these feminists replacing roofs? Where are all these feminists at the oil rigs? Where are all these feminists at the auto repair shop? Where are all these feminist at the construction sites? I will tell you where, they pulled the "I am just a girl" card and went to the office in spite the fact that many of those jobs are higher paying. But they will still cry about the gender wage gap.

What about the men who intentionally make those work environments toxic towards women to keep them out? Why aren’t men letting women fills these jobs while they go work in an office, classroom, or hospital?

dogs4thewin · Friday at 5:05 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
I am not just talking about a man defending himself. Most often, if a man was attacked by a woman, all that is usually necessary is a single shove and a firm grab on the arm for a man to defend himself from an unarmed woman. What i am talking about is if you go hands on with a man, would you expect him to fight you like a man?

If I were to go hands on with someone I would expect them to defend themselves with whatever reasonable force was needed.

dogs4thewin · Friday at 5:08 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
I agree. Unfortunately, you are only talking about 1% of the top 1%. The Marine Corps tried it. The sent hundreds of women to try the Marine Infanty Officer's Course. Only two passed...barely. One of them suffered permanent physical damage because her body was shutting down and now she can nolonger have children.

Here is one such video where enlisted men and women were asked to train together.

I understand that and am not saying otherwise only that IF a particular woman can meet the same standards as the men she should be allowed to serve in the same roles not that very many women could do that, but if they can they should be permitted in whatever role that is.

comana · Friday at 5:13 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Again I ask, "Should women be treated equally with men or not?" Being treated equally with men implies that men will confront you and fight you like a man.

Men shouldn’t tolerate assault much less call it a characteristic of being treated equally with men. Assault is a result of poor emotional and impulse control. Characteristics more often attributed to children.

Desk trauma · Friday at 5:26 PM

comana said:
What about the men who intentionally make those work environments toxic towards women to keep them out?

As someone in construction; it’s toxic, literally and figuratively, for everyone involved regardless of sex.

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 6:49 PM

Tropical Wilds said:
No, women cry about the gender wage gap because the person in the desk next to them doing the same job gets paid more if they have a penis. Or the woman on the roof gets paid less than the guy on the roof next to her. Or on the construction sites next to her get paid more. They don’t cry that other unrelated industries get paid more than they do. That doesn’t even make sense.

Prove it. Show me one example in which an employer is paying a woman less simply for being a woman. It doesnt make sense because it is yet another feminist lie that has already been debunked so much that it isn't even work discussing.

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 6:53 PM

comana said:
Work smarter not harder. Nothing wrong with teamwork.

What about the men who intentionally make those work environments toxic towards women to keep them out? Why aren’t men letting women fills these jobs while they go work in an office, classroom, or hospital?

Many men do work in an office, classroom, and hospitals. But for some strange reason, feminists avoid manual labor in dangerous environments even if it pays better than those secretary jobs.

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 6:54 PM

dogs4thewin said:
If I were to go hands on with someone I would expect them to defend themselves with whatever reasonable force was needed.

And for many men, reasonable force is like swatting a fly. But best believe it would likely be the man being arrested and charged with assault.

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 6:56 PM

dogs4thewin said:
I understand that and am not saying otherwise only that IF a particular woman can meet the same standards as the men she should be allowed to serve in the same roles not that very many women could do that, but if they can they should be permitted in whatever role that is.

I agree. Which is why I was not all that concerned about opening combat roles to women, assuming women had to be held to the men's standards. So we are talking about like a dozen or so women in combat roles.

comana · Friday at 7:17 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Many men do work in an office, classroom, and hospitals. But for some strange reason, feminists avoid manual labor in dangerous environments even if it pays better than those secretary jobs.

As pointed out by myself and others, men create a toxic workplace in male dominated fields. Take it up with those men.

iluvatar5150 · Friday at 7:22 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Prove it. Show me one example in which an employer is paying a woman less simply for being a woman. It doesnt make sense because it is yet another feminist lie that has already been debunked so much that it isn't even work discussing.

That it’s mostly corrected now (AFAIK, it is) doesn’t mean it wasn’t an issue in the past (it was).

The bigger issue now is the penalty caregivers suffer by being less available for extra work or for temporarily leaving the workforce altogether.

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 8:03 PM

comana said:
Men shouldn’t tolerate assault much less call it a characteristic of being treated equally with men. Assault is a result of poor emotional and impulse control. Characteristics more often attributed to children.

I agree. Although inappropriate, men have been known to get into fights with other men, correct? If a feminist decided to pick a fight with a man, should that feminist be surprised or offended because the man caught her back as if she was a man? Does she deserve to be offended because the man disregarded her being a woman? Again, we all can agree that that type of violence is wrong, and I am not condoning or encouraging men to use violence against women. In fact, I am completely opposed to it BECAUSE they are women (unless for self defense as previously discussed. But my point is does a feminist who seeks to be treated the same as men deserve to be offended, surprised, or upset because a man treats her like a man? Or should feminist only expect to be treated like a man when it is beneficial?

Going back to the OP topic, I think women should be able to vote. My issue is this modern wave of man hating feminism where they want all the male privileges but reject any of the male disadvantages.

comana · Friday at 8:54 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
I agree. Although inappropriate, men have been known to get into fights with other men, correct? If a feminist decided to pick a fight with a man, should that feminist be surprised or offended because the man caught her back as if she was a man? Does she deserve to be offended because the man disregarded her being a woman? Again, we all can agree that that type of violence is wrong, and I am not condoning or encouraging men to use violence against women. In fact, I am completely opposed to it BECAUSE they are women (unless for self defense as previously discussed. But my point is does a feminist who seeks to be treated the same as men deserve to be offended, surprised, or upset because a man treats her like a man? Or should feminist only expect to be treated like a man when it is beneficial?

Going back to the OP topic, I think women should be able to vote. My issue is this modern wave of man hating feminism where they want all the male privileges but reject any of the male disadvantages.

You should include men against men when not condoning violence. Don’t condone violence period. Most women aren’t looking for a fight anyway. Being physically weaker than men, they have other ways to solve disputes. One could argue that a lack of women, historically, in government leadership has allowed men to start the very wars that made the draft necessary.

And back on topic, women have the right to vote despite what some men wish different. It’s not a right that will go away as long as our Constitution is preserved.

Bradskii · Friday at 8:56 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Should women be treated equally to men or not? Simple question.

You obviously don't. And I think you've said enough on this topic. You really should stop digging now.

RDKirk · Friday at 8:59 PM

comana said:
What about the men who intentionally make those work environments toxic towards women to keep them out? Why aren’t men letting women fills these jobs while they go work in an office, classroom, or hospital?

The Denmark experience seems to say otherwise.

Denmark is one of the most gender-equal countries in the world. There are no legal restrictions, and social norms support women pursuing any field they want. Education is free, childcare is heavily subsidized, and there’s generous parental leave for both mothers and fathers.

Yet, Danish women — like women in Norway, Sweden, and Finland — still disproportionately choose traditional female roles like teaching, nursing, . Meanwhile, men are more likely to go into engineering, computer science, and the trades.

Moreover, there are other nations with clear gender role biases generally in the culture, but women are actually more likely to enter STEM or technical professions, sometimes at higher rates than in Scandinavia. The theory is that when economic pressure is high, people tend to choose jobs that promise stability and income regardless of gender stereotypes. But this is still modified by individual physical capabilities.

But in nations where there is less economic pressure, people feel freer to choose careers that align with personal interests and preferences. And those seem to fall into traditional gender roles.

RDKirk · Friday at 9:10 PM

dogs4thewin said:
I understand that and am not saying otherwise only that IF a particular woman can meet the same standards as the men she should be allowed to serve in the same roles not that very many women could do that, but if they can they should be permitted in whatever role that is.

That doesn't make much sense in the real world unless the fact that they are women can be totally ignored in the field...and it can't.

Moreover, what we had learned as early as the 80s is that the testosterone factor will always ultimately win out. Young men have vastly superior recuperability over women--any woman (except genetic anomalies like Caster Semenya)--that give them the ability to fully heal from repeated microfractures in a very short amount of time.

For instance, a hard march under a 90-pound ruck actually damages the joints. Hitting the dirt in a parachute jump actually damages the joints. There are micro fractures in the bones, micro tears in muscles and ligaments.

Young men heal from them practically overnight. Older men and women do not...those injuries simply accumulate. That's why even the women who appear to do well in those combat positions will have short careers (or will very quickly transfer out of those positions) before being medically discharged.

BCP1928 · Friday at 9:56 PM

RDKirk said:
That doesn't make much sense in the real world unless the fact that they are women can be totally ignored in the field...and it can't.

Moreover, what we had learned as early as the 80s is that the testosterone factor will always ultimately win out. Young men have vastly superior recuperability over women--any woman (except genetic anomalies like Caster Semenya)--that give them the ability to fully heal from repeated microfractures in a very short amount of time.

For instance, a hard march under a 90-pound ruck actually damages the joints. Hitting the dirt in a parachute jump actually damages the joints. There are micro fractures in the bones, micro tears in muscles and ligaments.

Young men heal from them practically overnight. Older men and women do not...those injuries simply accumulate. That's why even the women who appear to do well in those combat positions will have short careers (or will very quickly transfer out of those positions) before being medically discharged.

That's all very well, but how does it address the proposition at hand? That women should have the vote, but the feminists (vaguely defined) among them should not have the vote unless they register for the draft? Or that a feminist (again, vaguely defined) who is disrepectful to a man should expect a violent physical response?

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 11:20 PM

comana said:
You should include men against men when not condoning violence. Don’t condone violence period. Most women aren’t looking for a fight anyway. Being physically weaker than men, they have other ways to solve disputes. One could argue that a lack of women, historically, in government leadership has allowed men to start the very wars that made the draft necessary.

And back on topic, women have the right to vote despite what some men wish different. It’s not a right that will go away as long as our Constitution is preserved.

You are completely ignoring the point. But perhaps that is my fault. I can understand how using an analogy so extreme such a men fighting with women can be so unsettling that it completely overshadows the point that is trying to be made. So please allow me to use another, less dramatic example. In a New York subway, a blue haird, man hating feminist steps into the train and finds all the seats are full. She is 47 and carrying several bags of groceries. Yet, not a single man stands up and offers her their seat. Now this particular woman is a very vocal activist for women's equality. Held picket signs to protest the patriarchy and cried to her girlfriends about how oppressed she was as she was sipping her PSL (pumpkin spice latte) at Starbucks. She even traveled all the way to Washington D.C. to protest the SCOTUS repeal of Roe v. Wade.

My question is simple, should such a woman deserve to feel upset or offended if every man looked at her, then turn their eyes, leaving her to stand there for the next 25 minutes?

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 11:36 PM

RDKirk said:
That doesn't make much sense in the real world unless the fact that they are women can be totally ignored in the field...and it can't.

Moreover, what we had learned as early as the 80s is that the testosterone factor will always ultimately win out. Young men have vastly superior recuperability over women--any woman (except genetic anomalies like Caster Semenya)--that give them the ability to fully heal from repeated microfractures in a very short amount of time.

For instance, a hard march under a 90-pound ruck actually damages the joints. Hitting the dirt in a parachute jump actually damages the joints. There are micro fractures in the bones, micro tears in muscles and ligaments.

Young men heal from them practically overnight. Older men and women do not...those injuries simply accumulate. That's why even the women who appear to do well in those combat positions will have short careers (or will very quickly transfer out of those positions) before being medically discharged.

You are correct. I previously brought up a Marine Corps study when the took 200 of the top female officers available and let them try their Infanty officer's course. Only two graduated. Both barely passed and one was so broken afterwards that she can nolonger have children. All because their physiology could not handle the stress. That was only a 13 week course. Now imagine a war that lasts for months. Furthermore are logistical issues, what happens when a female soldier finds herself pregnant on the front lines because she hooked up with someone in the trenches. As absurd as this sounds to many, being a vet, you know darn well how things get on long deployments between male and female soldiers in the most unsanitary conditions.

Hegseth Boosts Video of Pastors Saying Women Shouldn't Vote, Advocating Repeal of 19th Amendment

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

dog lover

dog lover

Senior Veteran

The pickles are up to something

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads