Bold face originally posted by Tac or quotes of Tigeress by Tac "Many more women are envious/jealous of male privilege than men who are envious/jealous of female privilege."
That may be true, however this has been changing dramatically the past 30 or so years. Women of the 60's through the 80's are very different from the current generation in terms of equality. I think that most of this envy is from those who reached adulthood before the late 80's.
It is true that I reached adulthood prior to the late 80s and it is true that many things have changed legally in the last 87/88 years... changes we, as women, pressed for and persisted in pursuing in the US society... things men relented and yielded on.
Young women of today, no doubt, take for granted much of what has been done to make their life more equitable and fair.
Tac, biology/instinct was the cause of the unfairness. Laws don't change the root causes; male biology and male instincts, etc., and we are geared to respond to it, as maddening as that has been to me at times... I am wired the way I am wired.
As Lazs has pointed out ohhh so many times... once the thin veneer of civilization is shredded, all bets are off and males will resort to primal instincts of survival... women play a big part as a focus point of their instinctually driven behavior.
"Men are the rulers of our world whether we like that or not. Some of us like it and some of us don't."
That is one argument that always hits me as strange. Men are the rulers of the world. I dare say that yes, men are in the political and economical leadership positions because those are largely hereditary institutions but again, that has been changing a lot since the end of the 20th century. I don’t think you would've seen Condolezza Rice or Hillary Clinton type women in high office prior to the 1980's. It is changing and it changes only as the new generations step up to the bat.
There are changes... slowly, it is changing... where it levels out is still going to be a ruling male majority.
Condolezza is an appointee for (in my view) PC reasons as was her black male predecessor. I don't believe for one minute she is not micro-managed and scripted as was Madeline Albright.
I also believe Hillary would not stand a chance of nomination if it were not for the perception and reality of Bill at her side as a two term former US President and husband. She and Bill stand to have a more than fair chance of being elected back into the White House, in my opinion.
"Men don't take our name in marriage; we are given theirs.
Mrs. John Jones as a name for a woman is interesting if you really look it it."
I always thought that was dumb. Personally both sides should keep their names and the children receive the last name of the gender they are born as. Aka if its a daughter then she would have the mother's last name first and the father's last name second.
Methinks they just did the name change thing to make record keeping simpler in pre-computer times. 
Among the real reasons are... the generation to generation male surname legacy, the historic "ownership and maintenance" of a wife and his children, the social identification of her as "his."
Most young women today still want what we have always wanted and the social customs seems normal and in fact they are. The nuclear family makes for a more stable and stronger society and generally better adjusted children. When I was young there were real reasons most of us were not openly promiscuous.
Not many men would have married a woman who was rumored to be easy for a lot of reasons... I don't see male biology and thinking has changed at all, its just gotten a bit more PC unless pushed to reveal true feelings.
We want security and we ourselves apply pressure on younger women to "keep their knees together" and to educate them as to why that is important. Men will hit most anything but a potential wife is measured by a different metric and we know it… ohhh how we know it.
"No one really cares if a male is a virgin or not; historic attention to the virginity of a female denotes "not previously owned/occupied by another male."
Another medieval thing that is mostly going away.
It is true that it is not the end all be all that it used to be. But I believe men are afraid of other men dabbling where they don't belong. What guy is unaffected when learning his wife "has been bedded by" the pool man? …or a neighbor man?
What man would not cherish and value being the first for a woman?
"We have always been viewed by the male gender as possessions and historically treated as a possession."
Historically yes, but not applicable today.
We will have to part company on this one. Men are possessive in male ways of a woman who is theirs just as we are possessive of him. Male ego plays a big role.
"Males discussing whether or not women should be allowed... bespeaks of the control and possessiveness of males relative to females."
It is the same as why a mother would not hire a man or a teenaged boy to baby sit her daughter rather than hiring a woman or a teenaged girl to do so. There are some things where one gender just isn’t a good idea to be assigned to a certain job. Babysitting by a man is a danger to the child (if female child) due to the inherent risk ... having a person that cannot carry the same load, has lower upper body strength and lower stamina than her comrades in a life or death situation is simply too much of a risk to both that person and said comrades. It has nothing to do with possessiveness or being de-macho'fied.
The fact that men exhibit entitlement and enablement to control females is a bit different than say me choosing a female babysitter over a male babysitter or asking my husband to carry out the trash or shovel out the snow from the driveway.
"Is it not true that armies have raped and slaughtered females of the enemy for thousands of years?"
Usually after slaughtering the male armies yes. Does the US army do this today is a better question.
"Its seeing your female wounded or killed, meaning an American female as opposed to say an Iraqi female."
There are plenty of recorded instances in WW2 where all sides were not keen on shooting female enemy soldiers as they would male enemy soldiers. Vietnam had plenty of those cases as well. Of course seeing one of your female comrades get shot is a lot worse than seeing a female enemy soldier get shot but there is a huge difference between seeing a male enemy soldier get shot or dead than to see a female enemy shot or dead.
In WWII the only female combatants in battle that I am aware of was fighting for the USSR. It is well documented that German soldiers not only did not hesitate to fire on and kill them but also would routinely rape and torture them as a common practice when captured.
Many of the Night Witches committed suicide if shot down and kept a bomblet in their laps to do it with rather than suffer what they knew awaited them at the hands of the German males.
If you need references to this there are plenty available.
"That to "allow your" women to fight in combat would diminish separation and worth of your females?"
Not at all. As I mentioned, im all for women in the front lines if they are in tanks, helicopters or fighter aircraft. On the ground carrying a heavy backpack, rifle and ammo is where I believe they should not be due to their disadvantage.
I know there are men of your opinion that women "should be allowed", within the realities of our pyhsical limitations, but I believe such men are not a majority. It's rooted in an issue of male instinct of needing to protect us.
I like feeling protected, Tac. I have my protectors here... even in this forum and they have acted here on my behalf before. I don't choose to try to stare down a raging out of control male here. I don't opt for that protection unless the situation is extreme and over the top abusive in my view, because I want a free flow of conversation and ideas.
The majority of females are not interested in going to war... I'm not interested in ground combat... flying a war plane? Yes, I am interested in that but I am not so selfish as to choose that over my children and husband... some single women and some married women are more than interested.
Those women deserve to make that decision for themselves... as human beings... within the limitations of their abilities to get the job done.
BTW, there are many women who feel entitled to tell other women what to do too... for their own reasons just as there are women on both sides of the Row v Wade debate.
Personally, I say, and with all due respect, mind your own damn business. Regardless of whether an abortion is moral or not in the eyes of organized religion, every woman owns her own body, the church doesn't own it. If God has a problem with it He will deal with it on Judgement Day. So long as a woman makes in informed decision or not, it is hers and she will have to live with it for the rest of her life. Hopefully she will be informed because it will affect her, regardless of the final decision, for the rest of her life.
Personally, I would not choose to have one... even if raped.
R v W is outside the topic of this thread so lets not go any further here with that one.
TIGERESS
