I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I gave an opinion based on my experiences. You disagree with my opinion and that's fine.
It's simply ludicrous to equate combat with military service.
After rereading my post, I can see where I made it look like this is what I meant. I should have been more clear. You asked someone whether "men who never serve in the military or who never see combat "not equal" with men who have?"
I said yes, but did not clarify. I have nothing but gratitude and respect for non-combat arms folks. When I said "In the eyes of the law yes they are. In the eyes of this vet, no they are not," I was speaking of men who served in the military vs. men who did not. I have never met a combat arms soldier who did not appreciate a non-combat arms soldier, although we gave them a rash of good natured sh*t. They kept us supplied, fed and in good health, as well as allowed us to communicate with each other and fly/ride at times. My apologies to your father and any vet who reads my first post. It was not my intention to disparage.
The military puts people in combat for specific reasons. The military would be wise (and is) in hiring people for specific expertise, such as logistics, tactical and technical capabilities. They're not going to put their top technical and logistics people on the front lines, nor should they. Nor would they put everyone in combat and leave no one for supply and backup operations.
Thank you for explaining the military to me, but there is no need. Instead of talking about it, why don't you go join and live it. You know, serve your country, give something back?
However, your collectivist thinking
Please provide an example of collectivist thinking in my posts.
Fourthy, if the military has problems with personell assignement, that has nothing to do with women but how they manage personell.
Can't argue with that. If I was king for a day, if a single woman got herself knocked up, she would get administrative punishment (article 15), the same as she could get if she wound up with an STD. I would then kick her out of the military to free the slot for a qualified soldier. Darn. There I go being a male chauvanist pig again.
I am not a liberal but I am a feminist.
I've never heard of a non-liberal feminist. What does a non-liberal feminist believe or not believe that a liberal feminist believes (or doesn't believe)?
Hmm, let me guess. That abortion is a murder and that the most noble vocation is to be a mother?
Conservative feminists believe in many conservative things for example: the sanctity of free speech, personal responsibility, free and open markets, individualism over collectivism, less taxation, equality and justice for all. In addtiion many are pro-Life. Conservative feminists are pro-Family but believe individual families have the capacity to decide how organize their own personal lives, including education and work and conservation of family resources.
Feminists come in many stripes. In addtion, there are feminists all over the world and they are not all the same ideologically as NOW has apparently duped you into believing. They play that hand nicely and you (and millions others) fall in line like sheep. Fortunately, this is actually an advantage for broader feminism. As in the military, while people are fighting a meaningless battle on one front, the real work is being done elsewhere.
People are not all the same, no matter how we try to collectively stereotype them.