G.I. Joke
I assume all the men out there have seen the pictures of that US army woman behaving atrociously in some terrible looking part of the world. I’m betting you have because unlike women, men read and watch the news.
You may have seen the woman and not realized it. Army Girl looks exactly like a adolescent boy. She is in fact a woman. If a closer visual inspection doesn’t sufficiently verify this for you, just take a look at her actions: avoidance of responsibility, child-like sadism driven by penis envy, and looks awful in pictures.
If that’s not a woman plain as day, then I just don’t know what is.
If there is a better case for why women have absolutely no business in the armed services then I would like to know about it so I can write an additional essay on that. The crux of the matter remains fixed, however. Women shouldn’t be in the army because they have absolutely no concept of war.
Men know that war is a simple progression of debate. Once a diplomatic solution won’t pacify the situation, differences will be resolved via a bout of fisticuffs — be it nuclear or regular-style. Then we are all done with it and both sides go home happy.
Women, however, think of war like a divorce. It’s their chance to stick it to the bad guy. They’ll stop at absolutely nothing to cause as much pain as possible, no matter who suffers for it: men, children — even other women. Can you imagine such a sick mentality? It’s completely true though.
Lynndie England has been discharged I’m pretty sure, but that’s not enough. No way, no how. All politics aside, it won’t be enough until every woman is booted out of the army completely, with nothing to show for it but a duffle bag with the word “ARMY” crossed out with a Sharpie.
You can think of a million reasons why women shouldn’t be allowed within ten miles of a government facility. Here’s one, they can’t keep track of anything for longer than ten seconds. It seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the process, civility, and general manliness of war would be tantamount to all these.
Related Articles:
May 30th, 2005 at 8:58 am - IP Man-Hash: 3b56a757bf220
The only joke here is this entire post. I suggest getting your facts straight. You base all your posts on a few cases and forget about all the guys who screw up too. Open your eyes, you’re living in a bubble.
May 30th, 2005 at 1:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: bc05abe46b6ef
I totally agree with you here, Dick. I do have oneobservation to share, though- there is one reason we should employ women in our military. Women, when used correctly in guerilla-style no-holds-barred warfare, that N.A.T.O. and the U.N. like to sweep under the rug, can too be helpful to our armed forces. Much like undercover espionage that breaks down enemies forces from within, we should deploy American females to bitch at the enemy. The American femae has the ability to bitch far stronger and at greater length than any other woman sub-species on the planet Earth. This point is constantly proven on your website, therefore I needn’t provide any more proof, as I’m sure it is soon to follow in subsequent posts. The other was we can use the Loud-Mouthed Bitching Women of America is to let them talk about endless meaningless stuff and project it at the enemy via high-powered sound transmitters and wait for the enemy to become broken down and commit suicide to end the hell that has become their lives.
May 30th, 2005 at 5:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: 624f666d897bf
I was watching Montel the other day, and a woman who was in the army was on the show because she had lost her arm in combat… what a stupid idea for the show and what an even stupider idea for that woman to go into a situation to lose her arm…
May 31st, 2005 at 12:39 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5759da98f04d5
There are over 200,000 women in the U.s. army. if they were not capable of being in the army then they would not have been acepted.
I find it disturbing that you can insult so many brave, strong and dedicated women with the pure arrogance that you could wake up to a war everyday. Are you in the army, Dick?
I doubt it.
May 31st, 2005 at 7:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3b56a757bf220
I doubt it, and for that I am eternally grateful. I’d hate to have to serve with him (or be put in charge of him), because he’d make an awful soldier. And speaking of the army, as much as I’ve loved making points you can’t even attempt to dispute, I have in my hands my orders for active duty. It’s been great, but sadly, I won’t have the opportunity to outsmart you on your own website for several months. While I’m off giving of myself what many men are too cowardice to consider, have a nice life.
To the women (who obviously read & post on this site, because they know that a website in a public domain with no moderation or required membership is open to the public): Be smart, but don’t let them get under your skin. As you can well see, all their information is made up or twisted beyond the point of recognition, so it’s not like they have any credible arguments anyway. Thankfully, most men aren’t this ignorant. Go kiss a respectful man and thank him for his common sense.
June 1st, 2005 at 7:42 am - IP Man-Hash: 38ae76999b940
Good luck Carlie, you’re an insperation to us all.
I notice no ignorent men have even attempted to reply to our comments so far.
June 1st, 2005 at 6:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: 198450b4642a5
Is it just me, or is it ironic you can’t spell ignorant? And none of this changes the fact that women have no concept of war.
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:08 am - IP Man-Hash: 2a1e8e9fb020d
You broads do know we’re just humoring you on this women in the military ‘debate’, right?
Women still aren’t allowed in front line combat, so you’re basically bragging about 200,000 cooks who didn’t even have the wherewithal to crap out babies at the same time, which is the only thing they would have been good for otherwise. The ones who have been injured or killed were probably sticking their money-sniffing noses in places where they don’t belong and ending up in situations much too complicated for them to grasp even if they had let go of whatever man’s wallet their wretched talons were wrapped around.
They could have prevented all of that nonsense by putting signs up saying that there is no Prada store in Fallujah.
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:08 am - IP Man-Hash: 38ae76999b940
What is mens concept then?
Perhaps there were not women equivalents to Churchill, but there were certainly none of Hitler.
Men order wars which sacrifice everyone’s lives but their own. There are many good men I’m sure, but there are many evil ones too. And I know that no women would have murdered millions of innocent people, including children, just because of their believes.
Does the fact that some men will ruthlessly murder anyone different to them make them stronger than women?
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:19 am - IP Man-Hash: 38ae76999b940
Daniel, the 200,000 women i was refuring to in the U.S. Army are not “cooks” but soldiers or in a higher rank.
Women make up 17% of the U.S. army.
If all you have to say are your own twisted opinions without any facts then I suggest you make your sexist comments to someone who actually gives a fuck what a fool like you thinks.
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:41 am - IP Man-Hash: 2a1e8e9fb020d
As any man can tell you, those of us in the field of rational discourse rely on things like ‘references’ to back up any claims that need substantiating. It’s a fairly complicated idea, so you should probably find someone (try the library) to help you go find some of those to attempt to make sense of your nonsense numbers.
And afterwards, your mouth will surely be limber enough from ‘paying back’ the librarian that you’ll easily be able to fit your entire foot and its overpriced sparkly shoe inside of it.
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:14 am - IP Man-Hash: 38ae76999b940
Maybe instead of critising my statistics, which are in fact acurate, you should find some of your own. Rather than continuing to blurt out your own pointless opinions.
June 13th, 2005 at 2:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: c468450000f89
you guys must b gay! like wut the hell is ur problem wif ladies ? like if it wasnt fo us wut wood u guys do? like shyt man im sure u woodnt b able to do all tha shyt we have to do! this site really pissed me off i dunno bout all tha other females out there but it wood prolly piss em off if they ever came to this site. like come on now u guys sound like a bunch of lil kids. like 8 year old lil boys when they thought that gurls had cooties n shyt. fo real guys i think its time to grow up!
June 13th, 2005 at 3:09 pm - IP Man-Hash: cc0d45fa29251
Katy: Trying to read all that shit you just typed gave me a headache.
June 13th, 2005 at 3:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: fa2367636fcfb
Duster,
That because you must be old as dirt.
August 8th, 2005 at 1:58 pm - IP Man-Hash: 46d8304bbb9af
The bottom line is that there are women in the army, 100,000 to be exact (yes that is a fact Dick; try not to die of shock). If they weren’t qualified they wouldn’t have been accepted.
August 9th, 2005 at 7:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3dddc19b55aad
Nicole, you said:
“And I know that no women would have murdered millions of innocent people, including children, just because of their believes.”
I assume you mean ordering (or even having a heavy, intentional, influence in ordering) the killings, rather than physically killing all those people (since Hitler did not actually kill millions of victims himself, but had others do the killings). In which case, there are many examples of women in leadership positions taking actions resulting in intentional deaths and / or torture of innocent civilians, based on their particular idiology.
A few simple examples would be:
- Joan of Arc
- Queen Elizabeth I
- Margret Thatcher
- Condoleezza Rice
- Carla Homolka
Further, as you’ve pointed out; there are women in high ranking positions in armies around the world. These women are giving orders to soldiers which often end in death and also torture.
Also, I sincerely hope that you are not so blind as to honestly believe that women are innocent in the pitfalls of humanity.
Violent crime is on the rise with in girls and women; and severe psychopathy is currently estimated to be roughly a third that of mens; although male psychopaths tend to be recognized more readily.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/women1/5.html?sect =11
“It’s striking that among nurses and midwives, there have been so many killers…”
Innocent victims indeed.
August 9th, 2005 at 8:09 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3dddc19b55aad
Nicole,
You said: “Women make up 17% of the U.S. army.”
Some food for thought….
http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?DocID=243
“Some officials have claimed without support that female soldiers will have to make up for shortages in male combat soldiers for the Army’s new land combat teams. To the extent the problem exists, gender-based recruiting quotas are to blame.”
“Instead of dropping the gender quotas, the same officials pursue an illicit course of action that will erode the effectiveness of all land combat troops and eventually apply to Special Operations Forces and the Marine Corps. ”
” No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a 5’2? 110 pound female.”
This was written by the president of the Center for Military Readiness , Elaine Donnelly, “a former member (1984-86) of the Pentagon’s Defense advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DaCOWITS), and the 1992 Presidential Commission on the assignment of Women in the armed Services”
August 12th, 2005 at 7:38 am - IP Man-Hash: b0e7aae980b2e
Once again, the ladies feel that they have the right to besmirch this sanctified site with their observations. I will ignore their snideness and respond to their obiviously false comments re: the suitability of women in any area of the military. Here is why women cannot be allowed to participate in the manly endeavor of war: Let’s say that two guys get into a fight in a bar. After the fight is over and the wounds are bandaged, more often than not the two combatants will sit down and have a beer together. This is not so with women. When women get into a fight (always with words, not with fists as God intended) the fight goes on forever. It is never forgotten. Hatred and vengeance persist and fester. If, seventeen years after the “fight”, these women cross paths, the fight is on again. Were women allowed to influence war, treaties would never be signed. The wars would go on forever and become a way of life, not the occasional diversion they were meant to be. Add PMS to the mix and you’ve got real trouble: Fighting men are not inspired when their leaders cry, stomp their feet, and go for days without speaking to them.
August 13th, 2005 at 3:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: 46d8304bbb9af
Explain this, I have had several fights with females in my time, and yet I am currently at peace with all girls.
Also I can hardly imagine Churchill and Hitler sitting down to a beer.
August 17th, 2005 at 9:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3dddc19b55aad
The question is, are they at peace with you; and for how long?
Female relationships tend to harbor more grudges, and use subversive techniques to ostracise members of a group, as a form of psychological abuse.
When conflict occurs in male relationships, it is often pieced together more easily. It’s actually not uncommon, for example, to hear of male friendships that gelled after individuals had competed or faught with each other.
Also; women are typically more likely to bargain as part of a general problem resolution; while men tend to focus on reason and logic. Your example is quite a poigniant, actually.
I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what a “female Churchill” would have done for the world; and how a “female Hitler” would have been different.
August 20th, 2005 at 4:58 pm - IP Man-Hash: 46d8304bbb9af
The thing is, I’m awful at holding a grudge, and this isn’t uncommon among females. No matter how awful someone’s been to me, if they apologise I’ll be fine with it. After all life’s too short.
How exactly is it you know what women think or feel Dick, come on I’m dying to know.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:16 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true Nicole. You’re more vindictive and able to hold a grudge than you realize. To wit: what the fuck are you still doing on my site?
-Dick
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:30 am - IP Man-Hash: b0e7aae980b2e
Thank god women were not born with physical strength. This, in combination with their natural vindictiveness and hatred for anyone who disagrees with them, would make them very, very dangerous.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:45 am - IP Man-Hash: 6a9283bd40454
Indeed…
http://misformalevolent.blogspot.com/2005/08/n-is-for-nurturer.html
“women are TWICE as likely to abuse their children as men”
http://www.glennsacks.com/domestic_violence_series.htm
“women generally use less detectable methods to murder intimates than men do, including poisonings, which are often mistakenly recorded as ‘heart attacks’ or ‘accidents.’ ”
“women are much more likely than men to convince their extramarital intimates to do the killing, or to use contract killers, who often disguise murders as accidents or suicides”
“there are five times as many unsolved murders of men as there are of women”
“violence in abusive relationships is often initiated by women, and that women are responsible for a substantial portion of domestic violence at all levels of severity”
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:04 am - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Yea, that’s a boot in the ass of feminism if I’ve ever seen one. Cheers, alen.
-Dick
August 24th, 2005 at 11:34 am - IP Man-Hash: fc0a1f47284ec
Yes of course. Of the abused people I know (2) they were both abused by men, 1 sexually and the other had the shit kicked out of her ever since she can remember by her Daddy. But if that’s what your statistics say then it must be true!
August 24th, 2005 at 12:05 pm - IP Man-Hash: 841b5a7609141
Not my statistics, W-Hortencia, that would near worthless. How about you RTFA and see the data sources for yourself; that’s why I included them.
August 26th, 2005 at 10:51 am - IP Man-Hash: fc0a1f47284ec
http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/ibc3.html
These aren’t my statistics, but you should still take a look. If you skip down about half way on the NSPCC page you’ll find the section on gender.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/Info_Briefing/AbuseOfChildrenInResident ialCare.asp
August 26th, 2005 at 11:48 am - IP Man-Hash: 3dddc19b55aad
Thanks W-Hortencia,
I’m still reading through them… actually your second link isn’t working right now for some reason, but I’ll try it later.
The first link has a lot of information in support of my previous comment…
Including evidence of females being sexual abuse perpetrators more often than males by Russell and Finkelhor.
There are also some nice quotes there from Kauffman’s study in 1995 on sexual abusers
“8% of the female perpetrators were teachers and 23% were baby-sitters, compared to male perpetrators who were 0% and 8% respectively”
Also interesting:
“In a retrospective study of male victims, 60% reported being abused by females (Johnson and Shrier, 1987)”
“In other studies of male university and college students, rates of female perpetration were found at levels as high as 72% - 82% (Fromuth and Burkhart, 1987, 1989; Seidner and Calhoun, 1984)”
“Finally, there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders, and sexually aggressive men, 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979), and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993)”
“In the U.S., figures provided by the American Association for the Protection of Children (1985) reveal that most physical abuse and most minor and major injuries of children are perpetrated by women. Other research evidence indicates that mothers represent the majority of physical abusers and neglecters of children (Johnson and Showers, 1985; Rosenthal, 1988). Archambault et al., (1989) found that mothers are the major perpetrators of physical abuse for both male and female runaways.”
“Stressed to the limit, these mothers take out their frustrations on their children.”
“Fathers are also two times more likely by the perpetrator in cases involving child fatalities (Jason and Andrek, 1983).”
but in later studies…
“In other studies no sex differences, in terms of severity of abuse or child fatalities in two-parent families, were found (Gelles, 1989; Greenland, 1987)”
Like I said, still reading through it, though.
Seems to be in accorance with what I’ve been saying, though. The information on female sexual abusers is new information here; but interesting none the less.
August 26th, 2005 at 12:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: b0e7aae980b2e
Hortenzia, you should be more careful in choosing your references.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:19 am - IP Man-Hash: d27f28c99d991
Women are in the army, for one reason and one only, solely to hold non-combat jobs and fill the (wo)man power needs of the military. Why, because the draft would not, cannnot and will not be politically or socially accepted post Vietnam short of actual invasion of Us territory. Not even the “war on terror” is enough to change this thinking. Imagine a draft tomorow, and then imagine how many homosexual, drug abusing males will suddenly pop up out of nowhere.
April 15th, 2007 at 4:51 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Sieg Vile!
- atb with heather nova - renegade (aandt mix)
April 15th, 2007 at 5:12 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
___
Long live the Red states down under.
- Benassi Bros & Dhany - Rocket in the sky
April 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: af57ed4e054bc
YES!!! i am a woman and proud army wife….it boils my blood to see those little girls in the uniform!!! they do it to pay their way through college or to get a big bonus…and they endanger ALL of our service men!!! i agree with you 110%! another essay you can write is about how they made Jessica Lynch a “war hero” after it was HER fault they got ambushed….there is a quote from her that says, regarding the ambush “i didnt fire 1 round….i just dropped to my knees and prayed” THIS MADE ME FURIOUS!!!! If my husband would have died due to her not being able to handle the pressure of war - then i’d have killed her myself!
April 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: af57ed4e054bc
OH REALLY??? if they weren’t qualified?!?!? no honey - ive lived on these damn bases all my life - right now there are 6 cases within 1 month of these “soldier women” sleeping with married men….and there are PLENTY of examples of how they are not qualified….and THIS IS COMING FROM A WOMAN….
May 25th, 2007 at 3:21 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7114b06f58388
Sorry if I am pissing off everyone enjoing watching Nicole shoot herself in the foot with an assault rifle, but this blatant attempt at logic requires correction. And I need experience in dealing with women in debates, so I believe it is my right as a man to correct Nicole’s attempt at reason, and negative generalizations about men as well.
There might not have been equalivents, but they sure as hell were no angels either. Try reading Women of the Klan, then come back.
Why am I saying that? Because, by using logic, I can see that nazism and racism are alike on many points, racism being hatred against blacks (or whites, if you are black) and Nazism, on many levels, involved hatred of jews. What is common here? Hatred!
While this is not 100% flawless logic, I read a book on the subject, that I will happily find again (forgot the title), and quote if nessescary. Additionally, the term “feminazi” was not invented by accident.
And you stating that there certainly were no female equalivant of Hitler is one generalization I would like to see you prove.
That door swings both ways, honey.
So does this one. Let me open it correctly for you.
There are many good men and women, but there are many evil ones too.
I call BS. Prove that, or retract your statement.
“I know” is not a valid argument, and when it fits your case, I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt, (that, by the way, does not exist.)
Or I can be nice, and disprove it anyway. How does that sound?
Go read the SCUM manifesto.
Or better yet, ignore that and respond with a ad-hominem so I can get a good laugh.
Reversing the genders here not only ruins your entire point (If you had one), but your reasoning as well. You claim that “some men” will murder anyone different to them, yet you also claim that no woman would do the same? I call bullshit.
…Putting the total number of US soldiers, no, the entire army, at about 1,1 million soldiers. Now, it could just be me, or does this number seem awfully small, considering that the estimate of the populace in the U.S.A here in ‘07 are 301,747,000 individuals. Then again, I do not live in the US.
You do care, otherwise you would not have posted that, or tried to convince anyone that you are right. Tool.
And, now we are at the subject of facts, please post the source, or these “facts” look like hogwash. The other Nicole appears to have an objection to your facts, however. Maybe ask her as well?
And when we cannot read it for oursleves, how are we supposed to verify that these “facts” are indeed that?
Translation:
Good Carlie, have a biscuit.
I could be reading too much into this, but this looks awfully like you, stroking Carlie’s ego as a reward for his/her behaviour, and encouraging others to be like him/her. Just as your genetic programming would have you do.
There exist no ignorent men. Ignorent is not a word.
Because it is a completely impossible thought, that the women might be in, because they are women, right?
I take it you have watched G.I Jane. She had acess to a wooden step, that she ended up using. Time was also removed from her total because it was standard protocol for women. Mind you, this was on the obstacle course.
Today, they have a seperate one for women. And it is not because the other one (the one for men) is too easy.
Thereby assuming, that all women in the U.S Army are brave, strong and dedicated. Which, as far as I am concerned, is something you cannot possibly hope to prove.
Are you?
If yes, then join all these brave, strong and dedicated women in Iraq.
If no, stop trying to shame Dick for not covering your sorry hide against the muslims.
I win either way.
If it is not too much to ask, please try to make a non-personal response. If it is, then knock yourself out.
Oh, and P.S: If my Man-hash changes, that is because I am currently sitting at another persons PC.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:24 am - IP Man-Hash: 82017df8ad3f0
Talon, that was an excellent post. It bascially hit nail and tooth in every fucking shit that dumb bitch posted. Well said.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm - IP Man-Hash: 41b827c7c186e
My Manheart broke the day ‘they’ started letting women fly fighter aircraft. I had a female piolet for one of my incentive fights on an F-15D. She put my balls in the back of my throat, and I won’t take that away from her, but she thought it best to cut the ride short because her external fuel tanks weren’t x-ferring into her engines equally. It was then that I realized this was the same bitch who cut almost every one of her flights short back at home station for the same reason. The thing is, that is normal operation for a fighter jet, and all a flyer needs to do is check their flight manual for that problem, and it will tell them that its fine. Back at my hotel I found myself thinking of all the piolets I had debriefed in my career. Most were men, and some were women, but the common factor that all female piolets shared was that they really didn’t seem to give a fuck about the fact that in most cases, it was their lack of problem solving abilities had been the actual problem, not the fine peice of metal they had just taken flying hours from. My bottom line is that I don’t feel that females have the mental capacity to be entrusted with anything more complex than giving birth to children, let alone riding around in multi-million dollar machines.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
There are millions of men that feel the same way you do.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3c8b05bf321cc
Please. The difference in average I.Q. between men and women is negligible (5 points). The standard deviation is greater in men, meaning that men are more likely than women to be genuises, and also more likely to be idiots. Therefore, a man could be much better qualified, much less qualified, or about the same as a woman when it comes to a complex mental task. At any rate, the average I.Q. of women clearly indicates they’re capable of more complex tasks than giving birth.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: c4d026b819ad4
That 5-point “negligible” difference is what lets us men understand the word “negligible”.
-Dick
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3c8b05bf321cc
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negligible
I understand the definition fine; a 5 point difference in I.Q. is negligible. The I.Q. considered average is 100, with the standard deviation being 15. A difference of 15 I.Q. points or more is considered significant and would possibly affect a person’s ability. 5 points means nothing, there’s a greater difference between the average I.Q.’s of left-handed and right-handed persons than there is between the genders.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm - IP Man-Hash: de55713197a6e
Thats the statistics. Who knows if they have been contrived by some feminist bot who wish to hide the real gaps? Furthermore, IQ isnt really the greatest measure of intelligence(In my opinion).
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:29 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
And that probably means that righties are better than lefties (except perhaps at some sports).
July 10th, 2007 at 9:29 am - IP Man-Hash: 2abf1f46a738a
Wow im amazed to hear a reasonable woman’s point of view - especially on this site. Bravo, lady! You among millions other women, alone have got the picture. Think you’ll have any luck enlightening the other broads to logic? Good luck dear
July 10th, 2007 at 9:54 am - IP Man-Hash: a13ba81333017
Alex is correct in her arguments. I disagree with her conclusions, but she is entirely rationally correct in her arguments.
-wolfe
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3f1c500bb544
“Finally, there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders, and sexually aggressive men, 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979), and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993)”
funny my grandpa greatgrandpa and two of my uncles didnt have sexually abusive mothers…i guess though that they are special cases right?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: 074dd7af3d692
I agree 100%. Women should NOT be allowed in the armed services. My husband is a sniper of for the US Army (about as manly as you can get, in my opinion), and he’s told me countless stories about the women who sit and whine all day about being in the oh-so-scary country of Kuwait. NOTHING happens in Kuwait, but leave it to the women to play the victims.
That’s just pathetic. I say kick all women out of the armed forces and leave it up to the (better and more effective) men.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:04 pm - IP Man-Hash: cd72e1464c09e
Just think of the political sausage they make in DC as well Sara. Not only should women not be able to fuck up the army, they should not be able to fuck up the police, fire and rescue forces (maybe as nurses or hospitality tricks.) And lord god help us when women decide to get off their asses and make their husbands help them get elected to office in greater numbers.
Eventually the chickens will come home to roost, turning the USA into a 3rd world rape hell hole because no men will defend the tiring bitches or men will wise up and rise up, putting women firmly back into their rightful places, the kitchen and the bedroom.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:57 am - IP Man-Hash: f5dd2c102ccaf
MARINES, NAVY, ARMY, AIR FORCE, COAST GUARD, POLICE OFFICERS.
WOMEN SHOULD NOT JOIN.
Women complain that they need to be equal, yet they cannot get the job done in a Man’s world. Sure, they can do the secretarial work, but even Men are better in that field!!!
April 16th, 2008 at 10:01 am - IP Man-Hash: f5dd2c102ccaf
WOMEN IN THE MILITARY LOVE SEX, THEN THEY TELL THE HIGHER OFFICERS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN “RAPED”
BULLL FUCKING SHIT.
I remember this one female in my unit, we secretly nicknamed her “Train” because every fucking person fucked that one female. There’s this one guy who fucked her but she didn’t like him much. She