Smug-Fuck Fox Pundit Hates Women, Is A Woman

Quote :

The Pentagon announced new rules last week easing the ban on women serving in combat. While conservatives like Rick Santorum are a little uneasy with the news, the announcement only formalizes military practices that were already taking place.

I find it ridiculous that the idea of women serving in the military is such a hot-button issue. If women are fully equal to men, then it follows, logically, that they should be able to get killed in (or, why the hell not, drafted into) military service for their country. And I think most sane people would agree with me.

But there are sane people, and then there's THIS bitch...

Quote :

But Fox News contributor Liz Trotta’s commentary on the matter took the issue to a whole other level. She’s not really concerned about the “controversy” surrounding the Pentagon’s announcement. For Trotta, the issue is having “women once more, the feminist, going, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time.” She cited a recent Pentagon report that violent sex crimes in the military have increased over the last 6 years and said women should “expect” it, decrying more levels of bureaucracy to support women who have been “raped too much“:

Because, you know, a little bit of rape is cool, but there comes a point where it's just ridiculous, amirite?

I'm not going to give you the whole blow-by-blow. But seriously, this shit is low.

I don't know if it's a rebound phase or something but it seems like reactionary right-wingers are just defaulting to oppressing women after getting smacked down a few times trying to oppress gays

Quote :

I find it ridiculous that the idea of women serving in the military is such a hot-button issue. If women are fully equal to men, then it follows, logically, that they should be able to get killed in (or, why the hell not, drafted into) military service for their country.

Perfectly logical. Now, some statistics for your learning:
World Record "Raw" Deadlift in the 181 lbs weight class
-Man: Zurab Dzamikashvili at 705 pounds
-Woman: Jill Mills at LMAO530 pounds

World Record 100m dash time
-Man: Usain Bolt at 9.58 seconds
-Woman: Some fool with a hyphenated name I'm not going to type out at 10.49 seconds

World Record mile time (indoor, because apparently that matters):
-Man: Some Moroccan at 3:48
-Woman: Who Cares at at 4:17

So you see now? Women are physically inferior to men (I could go on and on with physical records, but I have class soon). War appears to be a physical endeavour, with very high risk. As such, it may be in the best interest of not only weaklings, but also capable soldiers to keep the weaklings off of the front lines.

The reason women do not serve in active combat roles in the military is because men will go out of their way to protect them, moreso then their buddies, which can ruin what they're trying to do when people risk the mission to try and save a woman, not because they're not as physically capable. Or so the military says.

Hahahahomg Hawiian, cackling like a fiend ovah here.

PSST HEDONIST

WHEN MAKING A POINT ABOUT SEXISM IT'S BEST NOT TO CALL WOMEN BITCHES

Hey Mikey, how much can you deadlift?

Sutremaine wrote:

Hey Mikey, how much can you deadlift?

Pssh, I could make him cry with a fingerlock.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Sutremaine wrote:

Hey Mikey, how much can you deadlift?

Pssh, I could make him cry with a fingerlock.

More to the point, I'm sure you could, y'know, shoot him. If someone gave you a gun and trained you how to use it, as tends to happen in the military.

Cyberwulf wrote:

WHEN MAKING A POINT ABOUT SEXISM IT'S BEST NOT TO CALL WOMEN BITCHES

PSST CY

1 WOMAN IS A BITCH DOES NOT = ALL WOMEN ARE BITCHES ALL THE TIME ALWAYS.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THE SEMANTIC HALF-A-WOMENS-STUDIES-MINOR BRAND OF BEAN-COUNTING BULLSHIT YOU'VE MADE YOUR GIMMICK ON THIS BOARD. I CARE THAT THIS WOMAN HOLDS A POSITION THAT ALLOWS HER CALLOUS, AWFUL VOICE TO REACH THE MASSES AND SAY TERRIBLE THINGS THAT COULD LEAD TO PEOPLE, REAL PEOPLE, WHO ONLY WANT TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY, GETTING RAPED. I FIND IT ABOMINABLE.

STOP HOLDING ME TO STANDARDS I NEVER CLAIMED TO HOLD OR TO AGREE WITH.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CAN WE STOP STAGE WHISPERING NOW?

Hot Cancer wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Sutremaine wrote:

Hey Mikey, how much can you deadlift?

Pssh, I could make him cry with a fingerlock.

More to the point, I'm sure you could, y'know, shoot him. If someone gave you a gun and trained you how to use it, as tends to happen in the military.

1.) 305 lbs of 5 reps is my best. Not sure what that turns out to be in a 1RM, but I'm fairly certain my deadlift plus my squat is still short of 705 lbs.
2.) And if I don't have any fingers?
3.) I don't know. The police are given firearms and are theoretically trained in their use, and they still can't shoot worth shit.

Edit:

Quote :

Hedonist's post

Oh sweet Jesus.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I'm fairly certain my deadlift plus my squat is still short of 705 lbs.

How about 530lb?

Hey Hedonist, if you give a fuck about women's rights or equality, then you better learn THAT YOU DON'T GET TO CALL ANY WOMEN BITCHES. EVER. You don't get to employ sexist language against women you don't like, even women who espouse absolutely vile beliefs. I am shit sick of seeing this on the left, with supposedly liberal men guffawing about what a whore Sarah Palin is or how Michele Bachmann deserves to be raped. YOU DON'T GET TO DO "THERE'S BLACK PEOPLE AND THERE'S NIGGERS". You don't get to decide which women deserve to be treated like human beings and which deserve every shred of misogynist shit your feeble brain can muster. And if you don't understand this, then get over there with the people who want to ban contraception and who blame women for getting raped, because the difference is only in degree.

TheHedonist wrote:

I find it ridiculous that the idea of women serving in the military is such a hot-button issue. If women are fully equal to men, then it follows, logically, that they should be able to get killed in (or, why the hell not, drafted into) military service for their country. And I think most sane people would agree with me.

Yep. But they're not. Not in the eyes of the military. In order to ensure they have a sane retention rate with female personnel, they'll keep it that way. Until they make the PT standards identical, they can fuck right off with this quota-filling bullshit.

But they won't. They'll continue rationalizing it away ("PT tests are about overall health, not capability!") and then wonder why performance goes to shit and people die.

That's the biggest issue with combat roles, anyway. There's a host of other issues that don't show any sign of going away, mostly logistical, that'll ensure it stays a fairly contentious issue.

EDIT:

Quote :

And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims’ advocates, sexual response coordinators. … So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.

Ohnoes, layers of bureaucracy in the military! It's almost like it's part of the federal government!

Seriously though, all those things she mentions?

1.) I can't believe she's arguing they're a bad thing. You know what all those layers of bureaucracy mean to me? A one-hour class or two a year. It's not stopping anyone from doing their job.
2.) Newsflash: they're not exclusively for women.
3.) If all women left the military, these services would still be there. And they'd still be necessary until someone finds a way to magically cure society, and by extension the military, of sex crimes.

And if they weren't, she'd probably go on about how the politicians hate our troops for not providing them with support, or that the manly men in her fantasies of what the military should be should just suck it up.

Of all the ways to address the notion of putting women in more combat roles, this makes about as much sense as putting on a Klan hood and nailing your feet to your desk.

Cyberwulf wrote:

You don't get to decide which women deserve to be treated like human beings and which deserve every shred of misogynist shit your feeble brain can muster. And if you don't understand this, then get over there with the people who want to ban contraception and who blame women for getting raped, because the difference is only in degree.

And it's possible, just possible, that I don't consider 'bitch' a particularly mysoginistic word, and that I'm not going to start because some lady screams at me on the internet.

Here's the difference between me and you, Cy: I hold an opinion that runs contrary to someone else's, we have an argument maybe once, maybe twice, and I let it be and respect the other persons's opinion. But you are incapable of this on even the smallest point if it disagrees with what you are sure is right, and even if a more important point comes into play. This woman is basically a sociopath and is using her news-pundit platform to gradually erode womens' rights...but no. There are more important things at hand. SOMETIMES PEOPLE SAY BITCH AND THAT'S TERRIBLE.

tl;dr yeah sure I should be more inclusive of people in everything I say ever, because its not like there are ever situations in which semantics and inclusivity aren't the biggest issues.

Also, this is beginning to sound an awful lot like a tone argument, which is rich, from you. 'I don't like how you're saying it so your point is invalid'...isn't this what you start screaming about every time someone tells you to turn it down a bit?

Edit: PS, Penguin, Mikey: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cyberwulf wrote:

Hey Hedonist, if you give a fuck about women's rights or equality, then you better learn THAT YOU DON'T GET TO CALL ANY WOMEN BITCHES. EVER.

So I should throw out my Alanis Morrisette, Elton John and Rolling Stones records for their prominent use of the word "bitch" in song titles and lyrics?

Freezer wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Hey Hedonist, if you give a fuck about women's rights or equality, then you better learn THAT YOU DON'T GET TO CALL ANY WOMEN BITCHES. EVER.

So I should throw out my Alanis Morrisette, Elton John and Rolling Stones records for their prominent use of the word "bitch" in song titles and lyrics?

I think Alanis and Elton might make your point better than the Stones.

But yeah, this, basically.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Hey Hedonist, if you give a fuck about women's rights or equality, then you better learn THAT YOU DON'T GET TO CALL ANY WOMEN BITCHES. EVER. You don't get to employ sexist language against women you don't like, even women who espouse absolutely vile beliefs. I am shit sick of seeing this on the left, with supposedly liberal men guffawing about what a whore Sarah Palin is or how Michele Bachmann deserves to be raped. YOU DON'T GET TO DO "THERE'S BLACK PEOPLE AND THERE'S NIGGERS". You don't get to decide which women deserve to be treated like human beings and which deserve every shred of misogynist shit your feeble brain can muster. And if you don't understand this, then get over there with the people who want to ban contraception and who blame women for getting raped, because the difference is only in degree.

Did...

Did you just try to equate "bitch" with "nigger?"

I don't think I need to explain the point any further beyond the fact that /b/tards doesn't use the word "bitch" to sound edgy.

TheHedonist wrote:

Edit: PS, Penguin, Mikey: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So this came out six years ago and the standards haven't changed.

Quote :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Seabees aren't in a combat arms job. As dramtic-sounding as "trained to hold a hammer in one hand and a Beretta M9 in the other," they were there to build shit at an already-held location. And cool as finishing contruction ahead of schedule is, working twelves for two weeks isn't that big of a deal.

TheHedonist wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

You don't get to decide which women deserve to be treated like human beings and which deserve every shred of misogynist shit your feeble brain can muster. And if you don't understand this, then get over there with the people who want to ban contraception and who blame women for getting raped, because the difference is only in degree.

And it's possible, just possible, that I don't consider 'bitch' a particularly mysoginistic word

Too fucking bad, because it IS a sexist word.

Quote :

and that I'm not going to start because some lady screams at me on the internet.

You think this Fox pundit gives two shits about what some impotent loser on the internet thinks of her? Boy, you're really changing the world with this thread. I mean, looking at the title it's almost as if you can't fucking believe that in a patriarchal culture, which thrives on the oppression of women, there exist women who are willing to piss on other women in order to improve their own status.

Quote :

Here's the difference between me and you, Cy: I hold an opinion that runs contrary to someone else's [...]and I let it be and respect the other persons's opinion.

Well gee Hedonist, why don't you respect the pundit's opinion? It's contrary to yours, just let it be!

Quote :

This woman is basically a sociopath and is using her news-pundit platform to gradually erode womens' rights...but no. There are more important things at hand. SOMETIMES PEOPLE SAY BITCH AND THAT'S TERRIBLE.

There are children starving in Africa right now. What are you doing here?

There are actual politicians RIGHT NOW who are gradually eroding women's rights. Why aren't you making threads about that?

You know, I would've let things be with a snarky call-out of your use of misogynist language to decry misogyny. I mean, you get the fucking irony there, right? But you had to start your holier-than-thou bullshit, and now here we are. Let me tell you why I continued it: because you don't really care about women's rights. You only care when it suits you. You only care about eradicating what YOU consider misogyny, because unlike me, you are the Ultimate Arbiter of Sexism That's Wrong and Sexism That's Acceptable. I got news for you, bucko, the little stuff informs the big stuff. You can't pick and choose which stuff is okay. I don't trust anybody who claims to care about women's rights but then turns around and employs misogynist language against women s/he doesn't like, even women who espouse reprehensible beliefs, because that person has arbitrarily decided that these women here should be treated like human beings and those women there are bitches cunts whores. And who's to say that someday I won't be shoved into the latter category by an ally, because I upset his precious male ego?

It's not a fucking tone argument, you wishy-washy little worm. I actually believe this stuff. I don't just dabble in it when something happens that's egregious enough to offend my delicate sensibilities.

Freezer wrote:

I'm too much of a braindead donkey to understand the wider point.

Cyberwulf wrote:

YOU DON'T GET TO DO "THERE'S BLACK PEOPLE AND THERE'S NIGGERS".

QFT

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I don't think I need to explain the point any further beyond the fact that /b/tards doesn't use the word "bitch" to sound edgy.

Something that's seen as normal can't be used to sound edgy.

Cyberwulf wrote:

You think this Fox pundit gives two shits about what some impotent loser on the internet thinks of her? Boy, you're really changing the world with this thread. I mean, looking at the title it's almost as if you can't fucking believe that in a patriarchal culture, which thrives on the oppression of women, there exist women who are willing to piss on other women in order to improve their own status.

So tell me, are you capable about making an argument without putting words in the other party’s mouth, or are you just terrible at it? I do, and I find it pretty gross. Hence the thread, really.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Well gee Hedonist, why don't you respect the pundit's opinion? It's contrary to yours, just let it be!

Because I'm not holding a dialog with the pundit. Since she will never hear what I'm saying, I'm not exactly obligated to be nice. But you know, generally when I interact with other people I try to be pleasant and respectful of everyone involved (unless, I don't know, they start talking about the Klan rally they went to). Clearly, you do not have these hang-ups.

Cyberwulf wrote:

There are children starving in Africa right now. What are you doing here?.

You realize that in asking this question, it begs the same of you.

Cyberwulf wrote:

There are actual politicians RIGHT NOW who are gradually eroding women's rights. Why aren't you making threads about that?

Because I didn’t read an appalling article about that?

Cyberwulf wrote:

You know, I would've let things be with a snarky call-out of your use of misogynist language to decry misogyny.

Let’s be honest.

You probably would not have done that.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Let me tell you why I continued it: because you don't really care about women's rights. You only care when it suits you. You only care about eradicating what YOU consider misogyny, because unlike me, you are the Ultimate Arbiter of Sexism That's Wrong and Sexism That's Acceptable.

…you’re kidding, right? Here's the difference: I'm claiming bitch is not an inherently sexist word. The word has evolved to have too much of a layered meaning for that (despite its status as profanity), and to assume that everyone who uses that word (they are far and wide and include some feminists) is an insane misogynist is disingenuous to the human race at large. Yes, there are terrible, terrible men who use that word. I've also heard it used as a term of endearment (mostly between gay men) and as a chide. There is a difference between a man who balls up his fists and calls his wife a bitch with his teeth clenched, and some snarky coed who calls her friend a dumb bitch because she tripped up the steps. The circumstances are different enough that the word doesn't mean the same thing.

Contrast with 'nigger', which never means anything good.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I got news for you, bucko, the little stuff informs the big stuff. You can't pick and choose which stuff is okay.

See, this is an argument I get into a lot (usually from a gay-rights perspective, since that hits a bit closer to home with me). I don't have a single shit to give about the word faggot or fag. Honestly. When something becomes as much a part of the vernacular as certain things have (fag, bitch, etc.) you're going to spend all of your time banging your head against the wall trying to change people's speech patterns and picking useless fights when, really, there's much bigger shit at stake. So, yeah, someone slips in a bitch or a fag into their speech I don't freak the fuck out. It happens. People are people, and they imitate what they hear, and by and large what they hear is not great. But if someone tells me gays shouldn't be able to get married, then I'm going to argue. Maybe I can make some progress, then.

tl;dr, what people say =/= what people do. And someone can absentmindedly use the word fag all they'd like provided they push the right lever in the ballot box. This might be something we disagree on. Notice how I'm willing to accept this reality without name-calling.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I don't trust anybody who claims to care about women's rights but then turns around and employs misogynist language against women s/he doesn't like, even women who espouse reprehensible beliefs, because that person has arbitrarily decided that these women here should be treated like human beings and those women there are bitches cunts whores. And who's to say that someday I won't be shoved into the latter category by an ally, because I upset his precious male ego?

You realize that uh, it's completely possible to insult someone and still consider them a human being. Because if it's not, then you don't really consider me one, given the content of this thread, and by that logic, you're a hypocrite.

Don't talk to me about how words hurt so much oh my god when you pull out nastier ones every chance you get. It really hurts your point.

Cyberwulf wrote:

It's not a fucking tone argument, you wishy-washy little worm. I actually believe this stuff. I don't just dabble in it when something happens that's egregious enough to offend my delicate sensibilities.

OH MY GOD I DABBLE IN A GOOD CAUSE THAT DOES NOT DIRECTLY BENEFIT ME IN ANY WAY

I AM A MONSTER

Cyberwulf wrote:

Freezer wrote:

I'm too much of a braindead donkey to understand the wider point.

Cyberwulf wrote:

a patriarchal culture, which thrives on the oppression of women,

Cyberwulf wrote:

I actually believe this stuff.

That's the problem, really.

Also, do I spy me No True Scot?

ITT: A bitch bitches about the word bitch