Deleted
Anyone else thinking of OoTS? 
Someone with a good grasp of the cost of shields and who understood of desirability of deserting with it rather than without it.
I think women are a bit more pragmatic when it comes to war and the like. We don’t have the same notions of “fair fights” and “Honor” that men do. It would take us much longer to decide to get into a fight, and once we did, we’d go the scorched earth route. In fact, we wouldn’t “fight” so much as use weapons to remove the crux of the problem.
Have proof that Kim Song Il is torturing people in concentration camps? Tactical nuke on the next Pyongyang military review parade oughta cover it. We would then turn around and go home, leaving the citizenry to re-build without the intervention of the cruel overlord.
I thinkt here would be few, if any ground troops, and simple assasination would be the preferred method for dealing with dictators.
These are, of course, oversimplifications, meant only to illustrate a difference in approach.
I have to admit though, this question gave me an immediate and frightening image of Carol Burnette’s bossy kangaroo in the new “Horton Hears a Who.” There are certainly many women who would want to control the most intimate aspects of other peoples lives. I think they currently have far to strong a hold in the Republican party.
In fact, last I heard male-specific medical research got approximately half as much money as female-specific research. However, males are much more likely to be used as experimental subjects (males are after all expendable), which is sometimes portrayed as being an example of “male privilege”. Yet if, say, blacks or Jews were preferred as experimental subjects we’d here about how Nazi-like that was.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:25, topic:551190”]
That’s more a result of simple biology. If a woman is a study subject, and the drug or whatever has an impact on reproductive health, she is out of luck, since all the “eggs” she will ever have are a part of her baody at birth. Men create new sperm on a regular basis, so within a week or so he’s (depnding upon the half-life of the study substance and his . .err . . . “turnover” rate) got a whole new batch of unaffected sperm.
The female cycle also has an effect, as it can be difficult to separate the effects of hormone changes from the effects of the study substance.
No, that’s bad science, and a major reason why more women have recently been included. Because the results of those experiments are going to be applied to those very women that you’ve avoided using in experiments in order to “protect” them.
The issue is love or lack of it, not who is oppressed. If there is love it will be better, if not it will be worse. At the far extreme of lack of love is a Jezebelian society where the queen has children who’s males are castrated and have very low status basically slaves, except for a few intact males for breading, they are imprisoned, and females are impregnated by the sperm of those males, bearing the queen’s children through her imprisoned male children, the queen would be the only one qualified to hold office because all the children are her’s, women are just incubation chambers. I do believe, at the other end, with love the walls between the genders and the requirement will break down in time, therefor is a temporary unstable condition.
Oh, I agree. I was just trying to explain how it came about, and that it had nothing to do with “expendability” of males. In fact, it puts far more females at risk for the reasons you named.
Well, yes, there is that.
Actually it was someone who enjoyed the protection of said shield but without any of the risk of holding it.
That idea is so dumb, only a woman could have thought of it.
First of all, do you think that having no “sense of honor” is a good thing when it comes to war? And what does that even mean?
Second, I can’t name a single miliary leader who advocates a “fair fight”.
Third, what do you plan to “scorch the earth” with? Nuclear weapons? I’m sure that will go over well. And to what point? What miitary or political objective would be obtained by rendering several thousand square miles uninhabitable?
A tactical nuke killing hundreds of thousands as punishment for a government torturing hundreds? That seems sane to you?
Bitches PLEASE!
Sure they do. They all want their enemies to refrain from using their latest killing technology, in the name of a “fair fight”.
Couple of problems with this approach.
How do you make sure somebody else who’s just as sadistic doesn’t take over? It’s not like potential cruel or corrupt overlords are in short supply.
The North Korean leaders aren’t personally torturing all the people in the camps. How do we make sure the people who are personally doing the torturing actually stop? How do we make sure they don’t just kill all the prisoners?
It’s also pretty easy for any rogue state to get around this. They just make sure to not have all the high-ups in the government in tactical nuke range at the same time. Or they build some bunkers. They could also use “human shield” tactics and have their leaders give all public appearances at or near places like hospitals or nursery schools, where the world knows a strike will kill lots of innocent people. I’d actually be kind of surprised if the North Korean leadership didn’t already do one or more of these, or something like it.
How do you keep the country from fragmenting into local areas ruled by warlords/bandits/terrorists? This tends to happen without a strong central government.
How do you deal with the fact that China and South Korea probably aren’t too happy about a brand new failed state on their borders? Nukes also tend to have a negative effect on anybody downwind. Japan’s probably not too happy at this point, either.
Instead of breading, may I suggest a light dusting of flour? Or perhaps a beer-based tepura coating?
It’s a silly generalization, one that I hope won’t be conflated with the idea that if you help mothers in some impoverished communities (by giving them education, food, jobs) you are helping their families and their entire community, which is quite sound. It’s sexist towards both genders, and not a particularly great argument when there are still people who think women should not be leaders in business or politics because they’re too gentle and nurturing (or some other garbage).
Er, yes, and as a result women are routinely prescribed medicine that has only ever been tested on men, under the assumption that they are simply ‘smaller men’ (who need reduced dosages).
Come to think of it, didn’t she do that bit about the first woman president?
“Why are you bombing us?”
“Oh, I think you KNOW why.”
This – is – NARSIA!!!
Which is why doing so is stupid as well as misandrist.
Interesting… I never realized that Rudyard Kipling was a chick…
I’m sorry, but I can’t condone spouse battering.
:: golf clap ::