AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Well she probably is. I certainly am. I haven't ever been one of the ranting and raving ones that we were encouraged to be in the 1970's---the era of bra burning and when sexual harrassment suits were rampant and happened if a guy hung a sexy pinup in his cubicle or told a crude joke within some feminist's earshot or even if he didn't take 'no' as an absolute answer when turned down for a date.

My brand of feminism exalts women as pretty impressive creatures capable of many magnificent things and who are worthy of respect, appreciation, and opportunity to compete. It also exalts men as pretty impressive creatures capable of many magnificent things and who are worthy of respect, appreciation, and opportunity to compete. And it makes it okay to recognize that men and women are not the same kinds of creatures and will often be capable of excellence in different things and that both are important in the grand scheme of things.

That's a persiflage, right?

Nope. I don't pretend that it is all there is to say, but I believe it, and, in my opinion, it has been confirmed by numerous studies conducted by people who were not so liberal that they were into emasculating men as much as possible.

Women are capable of doing anything a man can; many women are physically stronger than men.

There's nothing wrong with a woman wanting to become a doctor, lawyer or Indian Chief. Many will perform as well as men.

Anything!
Can a women naturally sire a child?
Can a man naturally conceive, and give birth to a child?

When you read these numerous studies, you are certainly aware that this "emasculating" only refers to a picture of men, arose during and over a certain period.

This really has nothing at all to with 'liberal' or 'conservative' but with how we were educated and socialised and thus how our 'concept of men (and women)' was built.

It was (and is) certainly appropriate in certain past periods. But we can't for instance now tell Muslim countries to change .... and stay ourselves at their 'attitude'.

Besides that: all men (and women) are equal.

More importantly, how many women would be able to competently quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys? And how many guys can nurse a newborn?

There are many many ways--most occupations in fact--in which gender is not necessarily an issue. But there is a reason that God gave the male of the species greater physical strength and gave women certain kinds of stamina that most guys would never attain. And there is a reason that the children who are most blessed are those who have a loving mother and father in the home.

Real feminists and real men recognize and appreciate the unique specialness of both genders. Robin's observation is that many liberals and militant feminists don't.

The studies had nothing to do with 'emasculating' Walter. That had to do with Robin's observation about some liberals. The studies are about something entirely different. Whether men and women are equal would depend on how 'equal' is defined. Among larger groups, the fastest runner or the person who can lift the heaviest weights for instance is 99.99999999% more likely to be a man. No amount of liberal-think can equalize men and women in certain things.

A woman has been considered for the NFL; not as a quarter back, but still amongst all those "big" men. LOL Have you ever watched women baseball or basketball? Many play better ball than men - and I mean that in every way! LOL

I agree with this, but acting 'macho' and 'tough' has zero to do with any of this.



Robin's 'observation' really is just a failure to understand my sentence above.

Cycloptichorn

I dont have to show that it is a lie.

What you keep doing is saying that someone lied, if they repeated what they were told or what their own experts said.
I wonder if you will also admit that Obama lied when he said that unemployment would not go above 8% if the stimulus was passed, its now almost 10%.
So, using the logic you are using, Obama lied.

Now, you claimed that the military was lied to about their deployment.
Even if Bush did lie (I dont believe he did, I believe he was misinformed by his experts), every soldier that has gone to Iraq since then knows why they are going, and what ats stake.

So, how are they being lied to?
My nephew just got back from Iraq.
He enlisted in the military 2 years ago, and volunteered to go to Iraq.
Since he enlisted AFTER everyone started saying that Bush lied, he went knowing what was going on.
So, how was he lied to?

Every person in the military is a volunteer, and can get out when their enlistment is up.
Yet, many of them are re-enlisting and volunteering to go to Iraq.
Are they being lied to now?
And is Obama lying to all of the troops he is now sending to Afghanistan?

You need to learn the difference between a lie and being misinformed.
After all, if I tell a blind person that the sky is orange with purple polkadots, would they be lying if they repeated that to you?
According to your logic, yes they would.

But you seem to think you are the sole authority as to what sources are credible.
And based on your previous comments and statements, any source that disagrees with you or has a conservative bent is not credible and must be ignored.

Not Necessarily.
There are many things that a man can do that a woman cannot do (leaving aside the obvious jokes about peeing and other bodily functions).

Men, as a general rule (and yes there are exceptions to every rule), have more upper body strength then women and are capable of more strength in their arms and backs.

And while there are times when a woman is capable of feats of strength that are well outside the norm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/4746665.stm
Those are more adrenaline fueled then anything else.

And yes, there are female weightlifters that can lift more then some men.

But, for you to say that a woman can do "anything" that a man can do is to ignore the fact that women ARE made different then men (a fact I am truly grateful for) and cannot physically do everything that a man can do.

Who?
When?
What team looked at her?
What position was she going to play?
What college did she play football for?


I know that the NFL considered a woman referee, but not as a player.
Her name is Sarah Thomas, and she first made history by officiating at a division 1 game (Conference USA) back in 2007.
The NFL looked at her, but I dont know what happened.

But, being an official at a game is vastly different then being a player at that same game.

So, my original questions stand.
You made the claim, so its up to you to back it up.

I forgot to add this link...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3019618

mm, Not in the NFL, but college football.

Is this close enough for you?

No, its not.
You said NFL, not college.
Those are 2 different things.

So, you either lied or simply made it up.
Either way, I challenged you to name the fmale looked at by the NFL as a player and you couldnt.
Again, you either lied or made it up.
Which is it?

BTW, your google link doesnt work.
And neither does your link for the womens pro football league.

You want perfect, you're not going to find it here.

You see it as a lie, but it was a memory lapse. I guess you never make mistakes in memory.

I make them quite often.

However, you have called others liars when they make that same mistake, so its only fair that you admit that you lied also.
After all, you cant refuse to go by the same standards you hold others to.

No, they were not the same mistakes. You just don't understand the difference; not my problem.