Posted on 03/06/2003 10:29:19 AM PST by Maedhros
As I said before, why do you think that up until a generation ago, men and women were always separated in certain situations? This denial of human nature is almost amusing.
Do you think that Condi Rice should be working side by side with the President? After all, he is a man and she is a woman, and as you have pointed out, we are weak and therefore, he would apparently forget about Laura in a heartbeat. Apparently all of his morals and upbringing would fly out the window.
What's amusing is men who feel threatened by women, and who think that because they might be weak, other men might be weak. Like I said, I've had women serve under me and over me, and I had no problems with them. Then again, I'm a Christian and I have morals and not everybody is Christian or has some set of morals guiding them, and it's wrong of me to judge others to be incapable of upholding their morals and beliefs in the presence of a member of the opposite sex.
My daughters have every right to achieve whatever they want to achieve, and thankfully people like you are not running things in this country or they would be stuck at home barefoot and pregnant and lucky to have a high school education. One is looking at grad school, and the other is learning to fly in the Air Force.
I seriously doubt that they put themselves in compromising situations. This I can say with confidence because I know that Pres. Bush is a godly man.
Maybe you should use Pres. Clinton and female interns as a better example.
One "legacy" of the Sixties is that only "rights" matter, never "responsibilities."
This wonderful "new world" has been a disaster for our society in nearly every respect.
I spent 20 years in the Air Force, and enjoyed working under some females. On the other hand, I hated it when women worked for me. I could not treat them like everyone else. It just was not possible. Each case was different, of course, but by and large, the males would do what I told them, when I told them. The females, in many cases, questioned my orders, before doing what they were told. In air traffic control, where flying safety is concerned, I needed my orders followed immediately, without question. For this reason, I preferred not to have females working for me. Other career fields were probably different, but ATC is unique.
This wonderful "new world" has been a disaster for our society in nearly every respect.
Illbay, I often disagree with you, but I think you are right here. Right now, the barbarians are at the gates. IE: the World Trade Center, and we are fighting people who wish to see the US destroyed. I might add another legacy of the 60s that you did not mention. Results don't matter either.
I'm quite old fashioned. I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions. Look at liberals and crime - many don't hold the criminal responsible for their actions, they blame it on their background or the circumstances. Same thing some in this thread are doing - they are trying to blame human nature for the problems and not the individuals responsible. If the Air Force would go and make serious examples of those involved, and if President Bush came down on some of the higher-ups involved, you would see the problem diminish (it would never go away, some people are just evil, and if they want to rape or kill or whatever, if they can't do it to a fellow cadet or a service member, they will go out in the local community and do it).
I would love to hear what "responsibilities" you think women have.
C'mon Illbay, your slipping. You just told us :
It has to do with the fact--which has been true from the time of Adam and Eve--that men and women are attracted to one another, and they are weak.
So what is it, everybody is weak or everybody isn't? If everybody isn't weak, then why say everybody should be seperated because of a few bad apples.
The liberals believe that because of a few bad apples, nobody should have the right to bear arms (because having a gun around leads to some kind of temptation to shoot somebody). You believe that because of a few bad apples, half the population should not allowed to serve in the military (because having women around can lead to rape). Very similar lines of reasoning (no, I'm not calling you a liberal, I'm pointing out that you can't assume that because of a few, everybody is going to commit a crime).
1-especially the women if they bore false witness;
2-if the charges are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
...and if President Bush came down on some of the higher-ups involved,...
especially those who take the politically correct route, for expediency's sake, and treat the accusations as fact in order to appear sensitive. That would be the old fashioned way.
"...you would see the problem diminish (it would never go away,...
Oh yes it would, and we all know how to make it happen.
Sorry, I don't see what you mean. I say that Pres. Bush, from what I know of him, wouldn't put himself in a compromising position. How do you get that this is "inconsistent."
Oh yes it would, and we all know how to make it happen.
Unfortunately castration is not considered a suitable punishment these days.
I think all Americans have some responsibilities, however I don't think they have anything to do with one's sex. What do you think their responsibilities? If you don't want to say "stay home and have babies" that's okay, lol.
You just proved my point in a round about way. You judge him as an individual. Those who serve in the military should be judged as individuals as well. You cannot say that women should be barred from serving their country or that men and women in the military should be segregated based on the actions of a few individuals.
It's the classic leftists mindset - judging a group of people based on the actions of a few, whether it be somebody committing a crime with a gun and therefore all gun owners are bad, or saying that we should pay some kind of reparations based on what other people happened to have done 150 years ago.
Hold the individuals responsible for their actions, don't try and lump everybody together and say "it's human nature since Adam and Eve, men and women can't work together, seperate them".
I agree. It was a mistake to open the service academies to women. There are tons of other jobs for women to choose from.
I have taught on the university level for over 20 years. I have two masters degrees. I am a professional woman. Not being able to enroll in a military academy does not in any way equate to being "barefoot and pregnant." The two-gender military does not work. Way, way too many pregnancies and problems with unit cohesion plus women not being able to meet the same physical standards as the men. It was a dumb, lefty social experiment from the beginning and should be stopped as soon as possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.